JUNE 19 — The world is teetering on the edge of a strategic delusion. With the early tactical success of Israel’s air campaign against Iran, and the muted or supportive reactions from G7 capitals, a dangerous overconfidence has begun to shape the logic of war.
What was originally conceived as a limited strategic strike is rapidly transforming into a maximalist doctrine of total victory, with growing pressure for Iran’s unconditional surrender. Trump has been the first to jump on board.
This is a moment where military hubris, not prudence, is steering policy—and the global fallout could be severe.
The mirage of early success
Israel’s military achievements in the opening salvos of this conflict are significant. Supported by US intelligence, satellite coverage, and logistical coordination, the Israeli Air Force successfully degraded large segments of Iran’s air defense systems, radar infrastructure, and command centers.
Cyber operations have reportedly paralyzed segments of Iran’s communications grid, leaving key military sites exposed and vulnerable.
These gains, however, risk being misread. Their data are too slim. Yet in the corridors of power in Washington, London, Rome, and Berlin, a narrative of imminent triumph is taking root.
The war is no longer about containment or deterrence—it is about collapse. With G7 countries such as Italy and Germany expressing open or tacit support, the operation now carries the moral and political weight of Western backing.
Germany, in particular, has gone further than most in affirming its solidarity with Israel, framing the campaign as a matter of existential defense.
Demonstrators protest US involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict in Los Angeles, California on June 18, 2025. — AFP pic
The erosion of Iran’s proxy shield
Iran’s traditional deterrence strategy has long relied on a network of capable regional allies: Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen. But this axis of resistance is showing clear signs of degradation.
Hamas, battered by successive conflicts and unprecedented retaliation after October 7, 2023, has lost much of its senior leadership and key weapons caches.
Israel’s overwhelming use of force and blockade strategies have deeply diminished the group’s operational effectiveness.
Hezbollah, though still possessing thousands of rockets, is constrained by Lebanon’s political paralysis and economic meltdown.
The group faces Israeli intelligence penetration, targeted strikes on its supply chains, and growing domestic disillusionment within Lebanon’s Shi’a communities.
Its capacity for sustained warfare is greatly reduced, and its deterrent effect is no longer what it was a decade ago.
The Houthis, after months of joint US-U.K. operations targeting their drone launch sites and missile stockpiles, are now operating under constant threat of pre-emptive strikes.
Their ability to project force beyond Yemen has shrunk, and regional naval coordination has curbed their effectiveness in disrupting Red Sea shipping lanes.
The result is clear: Iran’s buffer zones have been punctured. The Islamic Republic stands more isolated today than at any time in the past two decades.
Phased escalation and the pursuit of total war
With this regional context in mind, Israeli and US military planners are reportedly advancing a phased strategy:
Phase One: Eliminate Iran’s air defense grid through cyberwarfare and coordinated drone/stealth bomber attacks to blind its surveillance and response systems.
Phase Two: Obliterate nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, Arak, and Isfahan using Massive Ordnance Penetrators and long-range precision-guided munitions also known as bunker buster bombs.
Phase Three: Cripple Iran’s conventional military, targeting naval bases, IRGC command centers, missile depots, and logistics hubs, while disrupting communication and power infrastructure to foment internal dissent.
At this stage, the war would shift from military degradation to political disruption. Information warfare, satellite-fed psychological operations, and social media manipulation would aim to fracture Iran’s ruling elite and ignite domestic opposition.
The risks of strategic overreach
Yet the belief that Iran can be reduced to total surrender through external bombardment is strategically naive.
Iran may not possess nuclear weapons, but it retains a diverse range of asymmetric capabilities—cyber units, foreign operatives, and clandestine partners across West Asia and beyond.
At 92 million people, Tehran has built redundancy into its political and military architecture; even if core institutions are destroyed, resistance may continue through irregular means.
More dangerously, the use of overwhelming force may catalyze long-term instability.
A shattered Iran could become a crucible for insurgent groups, sectarian strife, and proxy wars reminiscent of Iraq post-2003.
Instead of regime change yielding regional peace, the result may be permanent state fragmentation and the rise of uncontrollable non-state actors.
The global political backlash is already brewing. While NATO members appear divided on how far to follow Washington’s lead, Germany has made its position clear: full support for Israel’s right to defend itself.
Others, such as Japan and France, remain concerned about the strategic wisdom and legal legitimacy of the campaign but have refrained from open condemnation.
Across the Global South, however, the perception is starkly different. Leaders in ASEAN, the African Union, and Latin America view the unfolding war as a neo-imperial intervention devoid of multilateral legitimacy.
With no United Nations mandate and no effort at collective security mechanisms, the campaign could further fracture global trust in Western-led international norms.
Conclusion: When dominance breeds disorder
Israel’s military is capable. Its early strikes have been successful. Its adversaries are weakened. But these are precisely the conditions in which the temptation for overreach becomes most seductive—and most dangerous.
With G7 support coalescing, particularly from countries like Germany, the campaign against Iran risks being transformed from a limited preemptive strike into a doctrine of regime obliteration.
And in this shift lies the peril: a war that is technically winnable but strategically unsustainable.
Victory cannot be defined solely by Iran’s military collapse or political surrender.
The real measure is whether regional and global stability can be preserved—or whether yet another Middle East war plunges the world deeper into division, disorder, and the decline of international law.
* Phar Kim Beng is a professor of ASEAN Studies, International Islamic University Malaysia and a Cambridge Commonwealth Fellow
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
