US strikes Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan: A dangerous turn towards unipolar militarism

These strikes—carried out with the infamous GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators or “bunker buster” bombs—may have reached deep into the mountain-protected infrastructure of Iran’s nuclear program. But while the bombs may have succeeded in destroying key facilities, the strategic fallout may prove catastrophic. Iran, a sovereign state and a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has once again been punished for possessing capabilities that are neither unique nor illegal under international law. This is nothing less than a gross violation of the UN Charter and an act of aggression with global implications.

The Myth of Preemptive Legality

It must be emphasized: these nuclear facilities were not weapons sites, but monitored research and enrichment centers. The United States has justified the attack as “preemptive self-defense”—a concept stretched beyond recognition to suit its strategic designs. Yet the truth is far simpler and more troubling: these strikes are politically motivated acts of war that defy both legality and prudence.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly verified the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear activities, even after the US unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018. Iran has abided by the monitoring protocols more consistently than any other regional state. The pretext of an imminent nuclear breakout is not only factually unsupported—it is a myth perpetuated for geopolitical gain, particularly by Tel Aviv and hawks within the US administration.

Iran’s Likely Response: Retaliation in Layers

Iran’s military planners are well aware that the US enjoys complete air superiority. But the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), whose Quds Force has deep experience in hybrid warfare, will now shift into asymmetric modes of retaliation. Already, some 40,000 American troops are stationed across the Middle East, many within range of Iran’s precision-guided mid-range missiles.

The Strait of Hormuz—a chokepoint through which nearly 20% of the world’s oil passes daily—is an obvious target. Even low-grade skirmishes or mines in these waters could send energy prices skyrocketing, pushing the fragile global economy further into recession. American naval assets, particularly the 5th Fleet based in Bahrain, are now under high alert, though naval dominance cannot deter missile and drone swarms launched from hardened sites and proxy territories across Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.

Global Repercussions: The Return of Unipolar Arrogance

The return of such unilateral military actions—especially under the Trump Doctrine—will not go unnoticed. China, Russia, and even several EU powers that had sought to uphold the Iran nuclear deal will perceive this as yet another affront to multilateral diplomacy. Beijing’s strategic interests in Iran, especially under the 25-year Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement, will drive it to quietly but firmly oppose further escalation. Moscow, though bogged down in Ukraine, will capitalize on this moment to further undermine Washington’s moral standing in the global south.

Even Europe, often caught in a bind between Atlantic loyalty and strategic autonomy, will likely view the US strike as yet another violation of the post-World War II liberal order it helped build. Macron’s diplomatic outreach to Tehran, Germany’s anxiety over energy disruptions, and even the UK’s reservations about unprovoked conflict may widen the rift within NATO itself.

The attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is not just an attack on Iran—it is a symbolic assault on the international consensus-building architecture. And in doing so, the US is enforcing a unipolar system where "might makes right" once again becomes the dominant rule.

ASEAN’s Strategic Imperative

For ASEAN, the implications are equally grave. While geographically distant, Southeast Asia is economically and energetically tied to the Middle East. A wider war that engulfs the Persian Gulf will disrupt oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz and eventually through the Straits of Malacca. Energy insecurity will be felt sharply in energy-importing economies like Thailand, the Philippines, and Malaysia.

More crucially, ASEAN cannot afford to be passive in the face of such systemic instability. The ASEAN Caucus in the United Nations, led by Malaysia and Indonesia, must demand an emergency session of the General Assembly to condemn the unilateral use of force and call for de-escalation. This is not just about Iran. It is about safeguarding the international rule of law from being hollowed out by great power impunity.

ASEAN must also make its presence felt in all upcoming summits, including the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), East Asia Summit, and the ASEAN-Gulf Cooperation Council dialogue. The Group Chair of ASEAN and Related Summits must call for a moratorium on attacks, the reactivation of the JCPOA through back-channel diplomacy, and a guarantee of shipping lane safety under UN maritime laws.

Furthermore, ASEAN should promote the reconstitution of a multilateral nuclear oversight mechanism that includes not just IAEA experts but also regional consultative panels from Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. This will prevent nuclear issues from being monopolized by a few Western states while bringing more equitable governance to the global security architecture.

Conclusion: A Crisis of Order, Not Just Conflict

Trump’s decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites is not just another Middle Eastern flare-up. It is a seismic event that signals the regression of international relations to a zero-sum battlefield where legality, morality, and multilateralism are expendable.

The world must now reckon with the consequences of a strategic doctrine that seeks to reaffirm American primacy at any cost, even at the risk of global war. ASEAN, despite its traditional posture of neutrality, must not let this moment pass in silence. As a regional bloc representing over 600 million people and commanding key maritime routes, it has both the legitimacy and responsibility to speak truth to power.

The time to act is now—before the bunker busters of today ignite the wars of tomorrow.

---

Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is Professor of ASEAN Studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia and a former Head Teaching Fellow at Harvard University.