On February 28, 2026, at 8:00 AM Beijing time, a coalition of the U.S. and Israel launched airstrikes against the Iranian capital, targeting government objectives in Tehran, and the flames of war directly engulfed the core of Iran’s power. According to publicly available information from multiple media sources, this strike targeted several government buildings, including the presidential palace, and Iran's supreme leader Khamenei was urgently relocated to a safe location. Following the operation, the Israeli side announced that “all established objectives have been achieved” and declared a national state of emergency. From the launch of missiles to official notifications, the military situation escalated sharply within hours, but market reactions occurred almost simultaneously—local financial markets in the Middle East hit the brakes first, suspending trading on the Tehran Stock Exchange, global risk appetite quickly cooled, and crypto assets were once again pushed onto the judgment stand between safe-haven narratives and the identity of high-risk assets. This article revolves around a core question: how did this rare joint airstrike against the core areas of the Iranian government since 1979 penetrate the battlefield and sanction networks, becoming a wartime stress test for the Middle Eastern financial system and the crypto market?
Fiery Skies Over Tehran: A Watershed Joint Strike Since 1979
● Outline of the Action: According to public reports, the February 28 strike was jointly planned and executed by the U.S. and Israeli military, targeting government facilities in Tehran, including the presidential palace and multiple government buildings. Israeli defense officials confirmed to the media that this operation had been “planned for months” and was not a hasty reaction, but rather a key chess piece embedded in a broader regional security game. Prior controversies surrounding Iran's nuclear program and the Revolutionary Guards laid the groundwork for selecting “government centers” as targets.
● Milestone Strike: Israel's Channel 12 described this operation as “the first joint strike by the U.S. and Israel against Iran's core government area since 1979,” significantly elevating the event's weight in regional order. The U.S.-Iran relationship has been hostile for a long time following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, but the U.S. and Israel had previously been mostly engaged in sanctions, proxy conflicts, and peripheral military pressure; now, directly targeting the heart of the capital's regime signifies a shift from “shadow wars” to open, direct confrontations, driving up security premiums and expectations of retaliation.
● State of Emergency and War Expectations: After the operation concluded, the Israeli side announced that all established objectives have been achieved and declared a national state of emergency based on source C's information. This internal defensive posture signals to the outside world: Israel does not view this as a one-off “targeted elimination,” but is preparing for potential regional chain reactions. The declaration of a national state of emergency signals expectations of “larger-scale military clashes approaching,” driving the market to quickly reprice risks related to energy, shipping, and regional assets.
● Retaliation Uncertainty and Escalation Risks: In the current context of limited information, the specifics of casualties and a more detailed scope of the strikes remain unconfirmed, but the possibility of Iranian retaliation is considered a high-probability event by most analysts. From missile attacks on Israeli territory to pressuring Persian Gulf shipping routes via regional proxy armed groups, the market is constructing scenarios for conflict evolution around different options. Here, we intentionally avoid any unverified details, emphasizing one point: once Iran chooses to escalate simultaneously across multiple fronts in the Middle East, financial markets will not be facing just a single event shock, but a re-evaluation of long-term risk premia related to the restructuring of regional security patterns.
Cease of Trading Amid Bombing: The Power Outage Moment of the Tehran Stock Market
● Trading Halt as a Panic Indicator: As news of the airstrikes spread, the Tehran Stock Exchange announced a halt in trading, with local opinions cited by Planet Daily suggesting this action reflects “market panic.” In the history of global finance, a trading halt is often viewed as a systemic stress response to extreme events—when price discovery mechanisms are at risk of losing control, regulators pull the plug to forcibly freeze emotions to avoid panic selling and systemic collapse, and the halt in Tehran is a replication of this classic script in a wartime context.
● Multiple Impact Paths on Local Assets: The attack on the capital's political and economic core adds compound shocks to local confidence in the stock market, bond market, and currency. In terms of the stock market, listed companies, especially those related to government contracts, energy exports, and infrastructure, see their future cash flow expectations collectively discounted under the shadow of war; in the bond market, sovereign credit is questioned regarding its refinancing capacity under the twin pressures of sanctions and war; on the currency front, the rial has been under pressure from years of sanctions, and any doubt regarding regime stability will further undermine residents’ willingness to hold the local currency.
● Echoes of Historical Precedents: A look back at past conflicts in the Middle East reveals similar scripts: Kuwait tightened local market trading at the onset of the Gulf War, and Egypt implemented short-term trading halts or selling restrictions during political upheaval to prevent capital markets from evolving into amplifiers of political crises. The halt in the Tehran Stock Exchange is not merely a technical measure but a symbol—when war approaches the capital, the capital market is forced to step back, prioritizing regime security and social stability.
● Shadows of Cross-Border and On-Chain Avenues: The local market's “closed-off self-protection” often spurs interest in cross-border and on-chain avenues. For Iranian residents and enterprises holding drainable assets, as traditional banking channels tighten under the dual pressures of sanctions and wartime controls, how to transfer assets out of the local financial system becomes an instinctive response at the moment of being closed. The halt itself does not necessarily point to crypto assets, but it lays the narrative groundwork for “seeking alternative clearing and value transfer networks”, with crypto assets being a natural candidate in this narrative.
Under the Shadow of Dollar Sanctions: Iran's Financial and On-Chain Gray Choices
● Long-term Oppression of Sanctions and SWIFT Restrictions: Since the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement in 2018, U.S.-Iran confrontations have continued to escalate in the dimension of sanctions, with Iranian financial institutions' access to the SWIFT system repeatedly tightened, facing long-term bottlenecks in oil exports and dollar settlements. Between 2018 and 2025, various on-chain analysis institutions have released reports concerning the activities of Iranian-related entities on Bitcoin and Ethereum networks, attempting to sketch out alternative payment and value preservation paths under the pressure of sanctions, providing the backdrop for understanding current funding behaviors.
● Real Motivations for Wartime Hedging and Cross-Border Transfers: In light of the recent strikes and potential expectations of retaliation, funds within Iran and those distributed among expatriate Iranians in Europe, Central Asia, and the Gulf region will likely prioritize assessing which asset types and channels can circumvent the traditional dollar clearing network. On one hand, the escalation of geopolitical conflict raises the credit discount on local currency and assets; on the other hand, crypto assets, as borderless and 24/7 liquid systems, offer technically feasible options for cross-border fund transfers, even if such options come with significant volatility and compliance risks.
● Behavioral Differences Between Compliant and Gray Funds: It is essential to clarify that not all funds using crypto assets under sanctions are in a “underground” state. Some compliant institutions and enterprises may manage their exposure to Iranian-related risks through licensed channels, custody, and compliant exchanges; however, more significant controversy revolves around gray funds attempting to evade sanctions, which may utilize decentralized protocols, anonymous tools, or over-the-counter networks for concealed circulation. However, under the premise of on-chain traceability, regulators and analytical companies have developed some detection capabilities, making this “hiding on-chain” strategy not zero-cost.
● Maintaining Restraint on On-Chain Details: In the current event context, we can only reference existing research and historical samples to discuss Iranian-related addresses and technical means, without making unsupported inferences on whether new large-scale on-chain migrations occur following this round of actions. Whether it concerns specific wallet identifier numbers or so-called “new evasion technologies,” without publicly verifiable evidence, any detailed descriptions carry the risk of misleading. This restraint also reminds investors that on-chain transparency does not equate to information symmetry; blindly following “tracking hot wallets” may itself become a risk source.
Hedging or Selling: The Paradox of Crypto Assets Amid Geopolitical Conflicts
● Price Mirrors of the Russia-Ukraine War and Red Sea Crisis: Based on experiences from the past few years, whether amidst the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict or the escalation of the Red Sea shipping crisis, Bitcoin and mainstream coins often experience sharp volatility at the initial news break. Sometimes prices may initially drop, then rebound within days to reach new phase highs, packaged by the market as samples of “digital gold” for hedging; at other times, they might follow tech stocks and high-beta assets downward during an overall decline in global risk appetite, highlighting their identity as “high-risk assets.” This historical trajectory indicates that the role of crypto assets amid geopolitical conflicts is not singularly stable.
● Triple Effect of This Round of Strikes: The U.S.-Israel airstrike against Iran might impact the crypto market through three main channels in the short term. First, global investors' risk appetite declines, leading to temporary contractions in allocations to high leverage and high volatility assets; second, event-driven trading and hedging narratives heat up, driving up implied volatility and derivative premiums, broadening the overall market price fluctuations; third, some institutions may temporarily tighten their crypto exposure to Middle East risks due to compliance and asset allocation requirements, leading to a periodic liquidity contraction that increases “passive volatility” in prices.
● Differentiated Responses from Participant Structures: In the face of war news, behaviors among different types of participants are highly differentiated. Local funds may view crypto assets as one of the few channels for capital escape and value preservation, even at the cost of short-term price volatility; global speculative players tend to treat it as a short-term theme, amplifying leveraged bets in futures and options markets; while long-term holders are generally more concerned with macro and structural risks in the monetary system, responding relatively sluggishly to single geopolitical events. The overlay of these three behaviors can lead to the market potentially experiencing both panic selling and bargain-buying on dips at the same time, resulting in “contradictory severe volatility.”
● Tension Between Hedging Narratives and Risk Asset Attributes: Therefore, in this incident, crypto assets are simultaneously packaged as a “wartime safe haven” to hedge against sanctions and local currency devaluation, while on the other hand also serving as a part of a high volatility and high uncertainty pricing system, being prioritized for selling during a global de-leveraging cycle. This inherent contradiction is evident not only in price curves but also in regulatory and public opinion spaces: each geopolitical conflict reiterates one fact—crypto assets are both a vehicle for hedging narratives and a barometer of risk appetite, and the tug-of-war between these two attributes constitutes the most challenging part for market understanding.
From Intelligence Shadow Wars to On-Chain Games: Invisible Shifts in the Medium- and Long-Term Landscape
● Security Premium Amplified by Intelligence and Nuclear Controversies: From public reports, prior to this operation, the U.S. and Israel had collaborated in intelligence for months, with ongoing disputes surrounding Iran's nuclear project and Revolutionary Guards. Intelligence shadow wars mean that, before missile launches, markets have already quietly accounted for the “long-term security premium”: rising insurance costs, increasing demand for hedging against energy and shipping risks, and an overall upward shift in the volatility range of related assets. This airstrike acts as an explicit explosion point, channeling previous underlying security concerns hidden in pricing models into the red and green candlestick lines on screens.
● Chain Reaction Between Energy Prices and Crypto Mining: Should the Middle East enter a more prolonged confrontation cycle, the most direct financial variable will be energy price expectations. Rising crude oil and natural gas prices will transmit through electricity costs to the global computational power market and crypto mining layouts: high-energy-consuming mines in energy-sensitive regions experience increased operational pressure, while areas with cheap electricity and political stability gain advantages in the power struggle for computational capacity. Some mining enterprises may be forced to adjust their geographical distribution and cost structures; in the longer term, the landscape of computational power may gradually but structurally shift due to the security situation in the Middle East.
● Extension of Sanctioned Countries and DeFi Dependencies: Besides Iran, other sanctioned countries and geopolitically high-risk areas have gradually explored the use of crypto assets and decentralized financial systems for cross-border settlement, reserve diversification, and evasion of capital controls in recent years. The current crisis may reinforce this trend: as traditional financial infrastructures are seen as extensions of major power games, on-chain systems “not under a single sovereign control” evolve from marginal technological experiments into strategic backup networks in the eyes of these nations. This does not mean they will fully replace traditional systems, but the logic of “redundant financial channels” will become more valued.
● Pressure Test for the “Borderless Assets” Narrative: This crisis essentially serves as a concentrated pressure test for the narrative of “borderless assets.” On one hand, the technical properties of crypto assets related to cross-border and anti-censorship transactions make them frequently invoked in financial war contexts; on the other hand, major power regulations and sanctions tools are quickly extending onto the chain—from KYC at exchanges to on-chain analytics blacklists, attempting to pull this system back into sovereign and compliance frameworks. It is foreseeable that as similar conflicts and sanction games unfold continuously, the process of incorporating crypto regulation into the toolbox of financial wars will significantly accelerate, and the future crypto market will no longer be merely an arena of “code and consensus,” but a new front intertwined with geopolitical and regulatory games.
War and Assets: The Self-Preservation Path of Investors in Gray Areas
From the U.S.-Israel joint airstrikes on February 28 to the halt in trading on the Tehran Stock Exchange, and to the rapid fluctuations in global crypto market sentiment, this chain of transmission clearly outlines: Military conflict → local financial standstill → cross-border capital anxiety → amplified volatility in crypto assets. As fighter jets flew over Tehran, buy and sell orders on the order book quietly rearranged, geopolitical risks were directly encoded into on-chain prices and the implied volatility curves of derivatives. In an environment of highly asymmetric information and easily uncontrollable emotions, maintaining restraint regarding unverified details, casualty figures, and retaliation timeframes is not only the baseline for media reporting but also a rational prerequisite for investment decisions.
For crypto investors, this round of events serves more as a reminder about principles: First, fully recognize the volatility risks; geopolitical conflicts tend to amplify the market's leverage and emotional amplitude, with short-term price actions reflecting more about capital positions than fundamentals; second, pay attention to on-chain compliance risks; in the context of accelerating sanctions and regulatory tools moving onto the chain, blindly chasing “wartime capital trends” may cross compliance red lines; third, view geopolitical tail events as variables that must be periodically reassessed in asset allocation, rather than transient noise in the news flow. Looking to the future, the situation in the Middle East may oscillate between “limited retaliation—manageable escalations,” “proxy conflicts prolonging the frontline,” and “localized ceasefire and negotiation recalibration risk premiums,” corresponding to the ongoing restructuring of energy price curves and the global correlation structures of stocks, bonds, and crypto assets. Investors need to closely track not only ceasefire and escalation signals from the front lines but also policy detail changes from the U.S. and allies concerning sanctions, crypto regulation, and capital flow controls—what truly determines long-term yield is often not the sound of an airstrike explosion, but the regulatory and capital flows over the ensuing years.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
