The eruption of war between Israel and Iran is no longer a hypothetical flashpoint—it is a live, unfolding campaign whose implications could shake the foundations of the international order and move the world closer to World War III.
More worrying than the precision of the Israeli strikes is the exuberant endorsement they have received from the United States. Washington, under the Trump administration’s second term, appears not merely supportive but almost intoxicated by Israel’s early military successes.
In doing so, the United States risks accelerating a conflict that could spiral beyond containment with long-term consequences for the Middle East and the wider international system.
What was initially sold to the world as a narrow preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure has been rapidly reframed—mostly by Israeli and U.S. officials—as the first stage of a broader strategic takedown. The language from Washington has become celebratory, even triumphalist.
American defense officials have praised the “surgical precision” of Israeli operations, lauding the effectiveness of cyberwarfare and air dominance in taking down Iran’s air defense systems. Behind the scenes, it is clear that US logistical support—intelligence sharing, satellite coverage, and mid-air refueling—has been essential to the success of Israel’s campaign.
Two US aircraft carriers—the USS Gerald R. Ford and USS Theodore Roosevelt—now patrol the Arabian Gulf, not simply to deter Iranian retaliation, but to demonstrate the American imprimatur on Israel’s escalation.
Therein lies the danger: Washington has moved from tacit support to strategic infatuation. The language of deterrence has been replaced by the logic of regime degradation. The tactical euphoria within the US national security establishment—particularly among hardliners and Trump loyalists—is pushing the conflict away from proportionality and toward maximalism.
There are already murmurs of a “three-phase doctrine,” aimed first at blinding Iran’s surveillance systems, then destroying its nuclear facilities, and finally dismantling its conventional military capabilities and command structures.
This shift is not occurring in a vacuum. Israel’s leadership has long viewed Iran as an existential threat, and the opportunity to degrade Tehran’s deterrent capabilities—particularly in light of the October 7 attacks and subsequent regional tensions—has presented itself with strategic clarity.
But it is America’s uncritical embrace of this campaign that is turning an already dangerous conflict into a potentially catastrophic overreach. The US is not just enabling Israel; it is emboldening it. What should have remained a limited strike is evolving into a doctrine of total war.
Meanwhile, Iran’s ability to absorb pressure is being dangerously underestimated. While its traditional proxy network—Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis—has been weakened through sustained military pressure, this does not equate to strategic collapse.
Hamas has been battered in Gaza and has lost significant leadership, while Hezbollah faces constraints from Lebanon’s economic and political decay, and the Houthis are operating under constant threat of Western preemptive strikes.
Yet Iran, a state with decades of experience under sanctions, internal suppression, and international isolation, is no stranger to endurance warfare. It has built redundancy into its security architecture, cultivated asymmetric retaliatory capabilities across the region, and maintained domestic cohesion even amid hardship.
The belief, especially in Washington, that sustained bombardment will produce internal dissent or collapse within the Islamic Republic is not only naive—it is historically disproven. If anything, foreign aggression often strengthens the ideological cohesion of its ruling elite.
Moreover, should Iran fall into greater chaos, the likely outcome will not be regime change with Western-friendly overtones, but fragmentation, insurgency and the emergence of more radical, uncontrollable actors—much like post-invasion Iraq or Libya.
Equally troubling is the global perception of this unfolding campaign. Germany, having historically aligned itself with Israel for obvious historical reasons, has expressed full support. The United Kingdom and Italy have also shown quiet approval. But others within the G7—such as Japan and France—are growing increasingly uneasy.
Their silence may stem from diplomatic caution, but their hesitation reflects deeper concerns about the legality, proportionality, and wisdom of such an escalation. France’s Macron has emphasized the importance of returning to diplomatic avenues, even if his remarks have been quickly drowned out by Washington’s rhetoric.
Across the Global South, the reaction is even more pronounced. Within ASEAN, the African Union, and Latin American capitals, the war is viewed as a unilateral venture—another instance of Western military force bypassing international norms.
The absence of a United Nations mandate, or even an attempt at multilateral conflict resolution, reinforces the perception that global security is increasingly shaped by power, not principle. The rhetoric of democracy and international law rings hollow when overwhelming force is deployed without broad-based legitimacy.
This moment reflects a wider crisis in global governance. With the UN sidelined and the G7 increasingly aligned with Israeli and American imperatives, institutions designed to prevent exactly this kind of escalation are proving impotent.
Worse, the United States appears to have abandoned even the veneer of strategic caution. In a domestic climate where “winning” matters more than wisdom, and where foreign policy is often framed in transactional or electoral terms, the allure of quick military success is proving irresistible.
Yet history is filled with examples of early triumphs that led to strategic ruin. The U.S. celebrated the fall of Baghdad in 2003, only to be mired in a decades-long insurgency that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and drained American credibility.
Israel itself knows that the initial success of its 1982 Lebanon invasion quickly devolved into a quagmire that reshaped its military doctrine for years to come.
In today’s rapidly evolving scenario, the consequences of overreach could be far greater. The regional order, already fragile from the Abraham Accords to the Iran-Saudi détente, may unravel entirely. The risks to maritime trade, oil infrastructure, and regional stability are not abstract—they are immediate.
A wider war involving Syria, Iraq, and possibly even Afghanistan would be difficult to contain. And while Iran does not yet possess nuclear weapons, its pathway to acquiring them would almost certainly accelerate if its leadership feels the only way to survive is through deterrence by annihilation.
Ultimately, the United States must reconsider its role not as a cheerleader but as a stabilizer. Fawning over Israel’s military effectiveness may generate short-term geopolitical leverage, but it undermines long-term strategic prudence. The goal cannot simply be Iran’s military humiliation; it must be the preservation of a global order that avoids perpetual war.
If the G7 allows Washington to continue down this path unchecked, then the next chapter of this conflict may be written not in Tel Aviv or Tehran but in the ashes of another failed war birthed by hubris and cheered on by those too enamored with victory to question its price.
Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is professor of ASEAN Studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia. He was formerly head teaching fellow at Harvard University and a Cambridge Commonwealth Scholar.
