US–Israel Strikes on Iran: The World on the Brink of a 21st-Century Great-Power War

By Mohd Khairy Abdullah
(International Geopolitical Analysis)

SOOK, (Sabah, Malaysia) – The United States and Israel’s military strikes against Iran on 28 February 2026 signal a critical shift in the Middle East security architecture, with strategic implications that extend beyond regional conflict toward systemic instability in the international order.

The operation authorised by US President Donald Trump is widely viewed as a direct escalation against the power structure of the Islamic Republic of Iran, particularly its supreme leadership under Ali Khamenei. In Iran’s security doctrine, any attack on the state’s top leadership constitutes an existential threat requiring comprehensive strategic retaliation.

Although operational details remain limited in the public domain, indications that targets included leadership networks and strategic infrastructure suggest a transition from deterrence to coercive military force — a threshold Washington has historically sought to avoid in order to prevent open war with Tehran.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long argued that only military action can eliminate Iran’s missile and nuclear capabilities. The strategic alignment between Washington and Tel Aviv in this operation reflects a converging objective: degrading Iran’s deterrent capacity and reshaping the regional balance of power.

Iran has consistently built a layered deterrence architecture through non-state actors across the Middle East. Organisations such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza function as core components of Tehran’s asymmetric response strategy.

Direct strikes on Iran increase the likelihood of activating these networks, potentially expanding the conflict from state-to-state confrontation into a multi-theatre war that is difficult to contain geographically.

In conflict theory terms, the situation reflects a classic security dilemma: deterrent action by one side is interpreted as existential aggression by the other, triggering a chain of reciprocal escalation.

The Trump administration appears to be pursuing what military doctrine often calls a “high-impact limited conflict” — a short operation designed to cripple an adversary’s strategic capabilities without occupation or prolonged war.

Yet historical experience in the Middle East shows that conflicts targeting leadership or sovereignty rarely remain limited. Strikes on Iran could trigger layered retaliation: missile attacks, maritime operations in the Gulf, energy disruption, and proxy escalation across the region.

Some foreign-policy analysts in Washington assess that the operation’s implicit objective may extend beyond deterrence toward regime change in Tehran. This hypothesis rests on the belief that the collapse of Iran’s leadership would realign the Middle East security landscape in favour of the Western–Israeli bloc.

However, policy experts warn that the fall of Iran’s power structure could generate a far more volatile geopolitical vacuum. Former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, has stressed that there is no certainty about what power configuration would replace the current regime — or whether the outcome would be more moderate or more radical.

Gulf monarchies aligned with Washington have likewise expressed strategic concern that open US–Iran conflict would turn their territories into arenas of retaliation, threatening global energy security and maritime trade routes.

The 28 February strikes may constitute the most significant turning point in Iran–West confrontation in decades. If escalation cycles continue, the Middle East faces the risk of shifting from chronic proxy conflict to direct confrontation among major states — a scenario that would fundamentally alter the regional security structure.

The implications extend beyond geopolitics: energy markets, global supply chains, maritime security, and international economic stability are all exposed to secondary shocks from large-scale conflict in the region.

In this context, the central question for the international community is no longer whether escalation will occur, but how far it can be contained before evolving into a wider conflict within the 21st-century international system.