Trump's strike on Iran : The deadly strikes with global repercussions

But behind this declaration of triumph lies a dangerous reality: every major power—Washington, Tehran, Israel, Moscow, Beijing—is miscalculating. These misjudgments, if left unchecked, may drag the world into the first truly global conflagration of the 21st century.

Trump’s decision was not impulsive. It followed a consistent logic he has employed throughout his political career: escalate first, negotiate later. Whether through tariff wars with China or summitry with North Korea, Trump sees chaos as leverage. He believes that diplomacy begins only after a show of force. But in 2025, the rules of engagement have changed.

U.S. military dominance, while still formidable, now faces challenges unprecedented since the Cold War. Iran is more regionally embedded. China is more assertive. Russia is more unpredictable. The Global South is no longer deferential. Trump’s assumption—that a limited, high-profile strike can reset global dynamics in America’s favor—may prove his most dangerous miscalculation.

In Tehran, the response will not be calculated purely on strategic terms. It is also about regime survival and national pride. The Fordo facility was not only a nuclear site; it was a symbol of sovereign defiance. Failing to retaliate would risk internal legitimacy and weaken Iran’s claim to leadership in the Muslim world. Yet any retaliation risks opening a wider regional conflict that even Tehran cannot fully control.

Israel, for its part, sees the strike as a proactive step to eliminate a long-term threat. But it may have misjudged the short-term blowback. Iran’s regional networks, asymmetric capabilities and cyber proxies are likely to be activated in ways that exceed prior thresholds. This creates a paradox: Preemptive security actions may amplify immediate threats.

Meanwhile, in Beijing and Moscow, the instinct is to observe quietly. But strategic detachment could become strategic liability. China may view Middle Eastern instability as diverting resources from its primary Indo-Pacific theater. But a prolonged conflict could disrupt energy routes, upend commodity markets, and provoke new U.S.-led alliances. Russia, though keen to see the U.S. overextended, may soon find the instability spilling into Central Asia or empowering actors it cannot control.

What is unfolding is not a clash of wills, but a collision of misperceptions. Each capital believes it can manage the next step—yet no one sees the tenth step. While historical parallels are imperfect, the psychology of reciprocal escalation remains eerily consistent. Sarajevo in 1914. Munich in 1938. Fordo in 2025?

Trump miscalculates that dominance ensures discipline. Iran miscalculates that calibrated revenge won’t trigger disproportionate retaliation. Israel miscalculates that U.S. cover equals strategic invincibility. Beijing and Moscow miscalculate that inaction equates to insulation. Each actor believes it is gaming the system—without realizing that the system is unraveling.

Malaysia and ASEAN must not be passive observers. Though physically distant from the flashpoints, we are economically vulnerable and morally implicated. The risks—rising oil prices, maritime instability, social radicalisation—are real and regional.

Beyond that, Malaysia’s inter-civilizational dialogue initiative could serve as a neutral and trusted Track II diplomacy platform, leveraging ASEAN’s non-aligned status to facilitate crisis mediation. The Islamic–Confucian dialogue we championed is not cultural pageantry. It can provide critical diplomatic circuitry to restrain the worst instincts of hard power actors.

The bombs dropped on Iran may not yet have triggered World War III, but the fuse of global escalation now burns amid layers of mutual misperception. For Malaysia and the region, passive observation is not an option. This crisis is not only a test of military readiness, but also of moral imagination. In an age where force dominates, the strategic value of moral clarity lies precisely in its power to redefine what is possible.

---