The eagle strikes, the leopard bleeds - will the dragon roar?

The Bald Eagle — the United States — did not strike merely to weaken Iran. The Islamic Republic was the flashpoint — but China was always the endgame.

Donald Trump does not bomb nations to wage war. He bombs to create leverage. In his worldview, diplomacy begins only after disruption. What happened in Iran is not a tactical operation; it’s a grand strategic probe.

Middle East instability forces the Dragon, deeply reliant on energy routes and regional partnerships, into a complex position. The Bald Eagle is betting that China, when faced with sudden geopolitical turbulence, will be compelled to reveal its strategic posture. But any such reaction, misread or provoked, plays into Washington’s wider objectives.

Iran may have been the immediate target, but the deeper gambit was to force China’s strategic hand.

This is not Trump’s first script. It follows his global punitive tariff campaign — which triggered backlash at home and abroad — and the much-ridiculed 250th U.S. Army anniversary parade. What comes next is part of a carefully staged sequence: provoke instability, then test rivals’ limits. Tehran was the bait. Beijing is the real test.

The Dragon responded with principled diplomacy. It condemned the strikes, reaffirmed the importance of the UN Charter, called for de-escalation, and emphasized the protection of civilians. At the United Nations, Chinese representatives expressed grave concern over unilateral military actions.

In a rare joint move, China and Russia proposed a UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate ceasefire. UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the airstrikes “a perilous turn,” warning of irreversible consequences if escalation continues.

Importantly, the Dragon exercised measured restraint. There was no retaliatory posturing, nor any surge in military deployments — only a calm affirmation of its long-standing commitment to multilateral dialogue.

This is not a sign of hesitation. It is strategic composure.

By refusing to mirror unilateralism with confrontation, China is projecting its consistent role as a responsible major power. It is underscoring that true leadership lies in advocating dialogue over disruption, and in building rules-based global governance — not in rewriting it through force.

Trump’s intent is not just Iranian retaliation — that is predictable. What he seeks is an overreaction from Beijing. A move that may suggest strategic overreach or uncertainty. If the Dragon says little, critics claim passivity. If it says too much, detractors allege provocation. It is a strategic trap with multiple layers.

This is a psychological contest. A battle of tempo and perception. Fordow may be the theatre, but Beijing is the principal audience. Yet if the reactions do not unfold as Trump anticipates, he may swiftly rewrite the script — pivoting narratives, shifting tactics, and reframing outcomes in ways that serve his next leverage point.

Amidst the global reaction, Malaysia emerged as a calm yet firm voice from Southeast Asia. In a clear and timely statement, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim urged the international community to avoid double standards:

“If the aim is peace, then the world must also condemn Israel’s provocations and violence, not only Iran’s retaliation,” he said.

He further noted:

“The indiscriminate killing of civilians — especially women and children — will naturally provoke a response. Continued foreign intervention, including by the United States, will only worsen the situation.”

Malaysia’s voice echoed the global South’s call for consistency and moral clarity — a position the Dragon has also long upheld in its foreign policy principles.

With the Strait of Hormuz under threat and oil shipments rerouted through the Strait of Malacca, Southeast Asia finds itself at a strategic crossroads. Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore must now manage not just trade flows — but geopolitical friction.

While Iran’s parliament voted symbolically to shut the Strait of Hormuz, the move was shelved under pressure from energy partners and global powers. U.S. and allied naval presence in the Gulf has so far kept oil flows uninterrupted — but tensions remain dangerously high.

ASEAN must now evolve from a reactive posture into a proactive framework for regional peace and strategic stability. As a region central to the Indo-Pacific, it must act as a steward of stability. Coordination, not fragmentation, is now essential.

Malaysia, as 2025 Chair of ASEAN and Related Summits, has the responsibility and opportunity to lead a new dialogue on maritime security and crisis prevention. This does not mean taking sides — but shaping regional outcomes.

From Washington to Beijing, from Tehran to Putrajaya, the strategic narrative is still unfolding. The Bald Eagle acted. The Dragon responded with composure. Malaysia spoke with principle. ASEAN must now respond with unity.

This moment is not only about escalation or restraint. It is about who can define the moral rhythm of international relations.

The Dragon did not fall into a geopolitical provocation. Malaysia did not remain silent. If ASEAN speaks as one, it may yet demonstrate that strength is not in loud gestures, but in strategic foresight.

When the world expects the powerful to dictate terms, it is often the composed and principled voice that redefines the course. In this moment, Malaysia can be that voice, and ASEAN, that stabilizing force.

The next move belongs to those who choose wisdom over reaction.

---

CW SIM is the Chief Strategic Advisor on Greater China, Strategic Pan Indo-Pacific Asia (SPIPA)