US and Israel’s attack on Iran will not lead to World War III - yet

WHEN the United States, under President Donald Trump, launched coordinated airstrikes with Israel on Iran’s nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan in June 2025, global anxiety surged. Analysts began to whisper—then shout—about the risk of World War III. But while the aggression is dangerous, the world is not yet on the precipice of global conflict. Why? Because the vast majority of global powers—from China and Russia to the GCC, ASEAN, and influential blocs like BRICS, SCO, and the United Nations—are firmly opposed to the war and are rallying against its escalation.


The current international system is not the anarchic battlefield of 1914 or 1939. It is instead undergirded by intricate webs of global trade, transnational investment, and intergovernmental coordination. Iran, in spite of being isolated by decades of sanctions, is not without friends or diplomatic channels. In fact, the international consensus—minus a few hawks in Washington and Tel Aviv—is unmistakably opposed to any military confrontation that could spiral into something uncontrollable.

An Iran Isolated, But Not Alone

Unlike the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which fractured global opinion, today’s attacks on Iran have drawn near-universal condemnation. China, Russia, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, and most of the Islamic world have signaled their opposition. China’s foreign ministry reiterated its support for diplomatic solutions and invoked the principles of mutual respect and non-aggression. Russia, locked in its own confrontation with NATO over Ukraine and Belarus, has accused the US of pursuing “hegemonic destabilization.” Even India—often delicately poised in balancing ties with the US and Iran—has warned against nuclear brinkmanship in the Gulf.

More critically, organizations like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) have all issued either direct or indirect condemnation. The Arab League and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), while wary of Iranian influence, have not endorsed the attack. Instead, they seek regional de-escalation.

ASEAN, under Malaysia’s Group Chairmanship, has led the multilateral chorus calling for restraint. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, speaking as the Chair of ASEAN and Related Summits, has pushed forward the Southeast Asian tradition of preventive diplomacy—emphasizing ceasefires, international inspections, and third-party mediation. ASEAN’s diplomatic influence, while limited militarily, lies in its capacity to project consensus, legality, and non-aggression as moral and political anchors in moments of crisis.

Why This Is Not World War III (Yet)

World War III presupposes a breakdown in global governance, alliances, and economic interdependence. That is not today’s reality. On the contrary, the global economy is more enmeshed than ever. Major Government-Linked Investment Companies (GLICs) and sovereign wealth funds—such as Temasek Holdings (Singapore), Khazanah Nasional (Malaysia), Mubadala (UAE), and the China Investment Corporation—are structured not to fund wars but to maximize returns and maintain global stability. No major economy, whether in the Global North or South, benefits from widespread military conflagration in the Middle East.

Even President Trump’s motivations are domestically driven. His administration has made clear that its foremost priority is the re-industrialization of America—bringing supply chains home, reviving manufacturing, and countering China technologically and economically. Another global war, requiring massive overseas deployments, nation-building, and fiscal hemorrhage, runs directly counter to that agenda. The bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, while dramatic, is not the opening salvo of a full-scale war but rather a calibrated strike aimed at deterring Iran’s nuclear progress.

But World War III Remains a Possibility

However, dismissing the risk altogether would be naïve. If Iran interprets these bombings as a final attempt to preempt its nuclear capabilities, it may accelerate its transition from a nuclear breakout state to a full-fledged nuclear weapons power—mirroring North Korea’s path. Iran already has the scientific infrastructure and missile delivery systems; what it lacks is political justification. The bombings may provide precisely that.

And once Iran crosses that nuclear threshold, it will likely exit the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), eject international inspectors, and enter a prolonged standoff with the West. Israel, which adheres to its own policy of nuclear ambiguity, will never accept a nuclear-armed Iran. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and even Egypt may follow with their own nuclear programs, plunging the Middle East into an arms race. Such a proliferation cascade could tip the global system toward instability—making the risk of miscalculation, preemption, or nuclear accident ever more likely.

Moreover, the bombings have made international inspection and verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) extremely difficult. Many of the attacked sites—some buried 80 meters underground—are now either inaccessible or contaminated. Scientists cannot easily determine what damage was done or whether radiological materials have been dispersed or stolen. This scientific vacuum compounds the strategic one: the less the world knows about Iran’s capabilities, the more paranoid all sides become.

ASEAN’s Vital Voice in a Fractured World

At this critical juncture, diplomacy cannot be led by great powers alone. Middle powers and regional groupings like ASEAN must step forward. Malaysia, as the 2025 Chair of ASEAN and Related Summits, has taken commendable steps in reasserting Southeast Asia’s relevance to global security. Under Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim, ASEAN has intensified its calls for international law, civilian protection, and regional stability. It has spoken not only on Iran but also on Gaza, Ukraine, and Myanmar—consistently advocating for peaceful resolution and international oversight.

Through platforms such as the East Asia Summit, ASEAN Plus Three, and the ASEAN-GCC-China Summit, Malaysia has built strategic bridges that can be used now to contain further conflict. The ASEAN-GCC-China Summit in May 2025 explicitly called for the Dialogue of Civilizations, drawing on the philosophical traditions of Islam and Confucianism to resist polarization and build a global ethic of peace.

Even the UN Security Council, paralyzed by vetoes, has begun to take ASEAN’s declarations seriously. This is a testament not only to Malaysia’s leadership but to the fact that ASEAN represents a bloc of nearly 700 million people committed to a non-aligned, rules-based world order.

Conclusion: Avoiding the Point of No Return

The bombings of Iran’s nuclear sites by the US and Israel are reckless, but they do not necessarily herald World War III. The world still has the diplomatic, economic, and normative structures to contain this crisis. But those structures must be activated now. Iran will retaliate—perhaps through cyber warfare, regional militias, or direct strikes on Israeli or US assets—but further escalation must be managed.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions may be emboldened, not curtailed, by these strikes. And if the world sleepwalks through this moment, it may one day look back on June 2025 as the turning point when deterrence failed and proliferation went unchecked.

This is why ASEAN, through its Chair, must continue to raise the alarm—not with aggression, but with clarity, diplomacy, and moral urgency. Peace must not only be preserved. It must be projected, cultivated, and defended—before the slide into global catastrophe becomes irreversible.

---

Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is Professor of ASEAN Studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia and a Cambridge Commonwealth Fellow.

** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.









Dapatkan berita terkini di sini