After 12 nights of American bombing runs, the conflict, which Washington pledged would last a week, appears to be stalemated and is leaving its impact far beyond the shores of the Persian Gulf. Early Thursday, CENTCOM acknowledged its 12th straight night of air strikes against Iranian military assets this month, including maritime assets, drone storage depots, coastal radar stations and air defense batteries. Iran's reaction was quick and sharp: a tanker that attempted to pass through waters the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps now say are theirs alone was set ablaze. The fire on the yacht, which was reportedly Saudi-flagged, occurred after it was hit by an unidentified object that Yemen's Houthi movement has said was part of its "siege-for-siege" campaign against Riyadh, the Saudi capital.

The figures speak for themselves. Overnight, Brent crude rose five percent to hit nearly ninety-nine dollars a barrel, the price's most recent high since May, with traders already adjusting for the fact that this war is far from over. President Trump has also made a “standing threat” on social media: for every Iranian attack on a ship in the Strait, the United States will take down one Iranian bridge or power plant. Tehran's response was to threaten punishment for U.S.-backed energy facilities in the broader region another tit-for-tat calculation that is virtually certain to lead to further escalation, not de-escalation.

But what has been much less talked about than the missiles is the much quieter choice that has received far less global attention. Britain's government has granted U.S. permission to continue to use the country's bases abroad, such as Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford, for "defensive operations" in response to potential Iranian missile attacks. That's not a new posture, it's a doubling down on the one adopted since the initial days of the war when the previous government first allowed US aircraft access to those facilities, but after considerable internal hesitation. The optics are really important here. It's getting easier to maintain a posture of neutrality or defence with American bombers flying sorties out of British territory night after night for now almost two weeks. You can't help but wonder if the "defensive" and "offensive" distinction is any more meaningful in London, or if it's a semantic barrier to getting more deeply involved without the political risk of saying you're involved.

This war's cost is being paid by the people it has invaded and not by those who wanted it to begin with, as the humanitarian and infrastructure damage is being done. In Kuwait, authorities have reported that missiles fired by Iranian military forces have severely damaged power and water desalination plants, throwing the nation into a power crisis in the heat of the Gulf summer when temperatures regularly hit the forties. Similarly, Jordan and Bahrain have received reports of similar bombardment. This makes a huge difference as desalinated water is not an option in this region it is a necessity. Nearly all of Qatar's drinking water and almost 80% of Israel's and 90% of Kuwait's and Bahrain's are provided by desalination. Water treatment facilities are clearly civilian property and under no legitimate target of any interpretation of the laws of armed conflict, and both sides have now attacked these facilities, with Iran accusing Washington of committing a war crime after its strikes on water reservoirs in Hormozgan province.

The mathematics are harsh and stark in India. New Delhi's crude imports constitute around eighty-five to ninety percent of its total requirement and any increase of ten dollars in crude oil price adds nearly a half percentage-point in the current account deficit of GDP. The rupee has already weakened past the ninety-two mark against the dollar in this conflict and renewed volatility of this magnitude has put fresh pressure on import-heavy sectors from aviation to fertilizer, trade corridors which run smoothly in the Gulf, basmati rice trade to Iran and almond imports from Iran as well as banana exports rotting at Kandla, where no insurance companies have yet been willing to send refrigerated vessels into a war zone. Throughout, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has maintained a pragmatic non-aligned approach keeping India uninvolved in the worst consequences while keeping a diplomatic channel open with Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi uninvolved in the worst of the disruptions even as the western capitals bounce between the rhetoric of escalation and half-hearted diplomacy.

The stance of Pakistan is set up for a more disreputable interpretation. The Pakistan foreign office, which, in April, brokered the initial ceasefire, now issues statements for the side-lines, urging "restraint" in the ongoing conflict which has returned to a level much greater than the one which the so-called Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding was designed to withstand. In recent days, Iran has reportedly become more openly suspicious of Pakistan's intentions, while the mediator's own briefings are now less authoritative, and more defensive, than they once were, as Pakistan has spent months trying to make its diplomacy look the saver for the region.

The result of these twelve nights of bombing is a war in which each declared red line shifts, in which alliances of convenience are being tested on the spot, in which the burden of dollars, of drinking water, of currency depreciation, of stranded cargo is landing hardest on people and economies that have not been asked to play a part in anyone's strategic calculation.