On the morning of June 13, 2025, explosions rang out over Tehran, shattering the fragile calm of the Islamic world’s sacred day of prayer. The targets were reportedly Iranian military and nuclear infrastructure.
And unlike past episodes of strategic ambiguity, this operation was not denied. It was explicitly approved by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Within hours, Iran responded. Drones were launched in swift retaliation, hitting sites believed to be affiliated with Israeli-linked interests in the region. This cycle of provocation and reprisal is not new in the Middle East.
But what makes this moment different is its timing, its international implications and the risk it now poses to the United States and global stability.
Just months earlier, US President Donald Trump, newly returned to office, sharply rebuked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump criticized Zelensky’s refusal to negotiate with Russia as the root of prolonged conflict in Europe, warning that Kyiv’s obstinacy could bring the world closer to World War III.
Yet it is not Ukraine that has ignited a new regional firestorm. It is Netanyahu—an American ally—who has taken a unilateral military step that may now entangle Washington in a conflict it did not start and cannot control.
The irony is sharp. Netanyahu’s strike, reportedly conducted without prior coordination with the United States, which may or may not be true, comes at a time when the Biden and Trump administrations alike have signaled exhaustion with Middle Eastern entanglements.
After two decades of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American public’s appetite for intervention is low. And yet, because of this one decision by an allied leader, the US may now find itself on the edge of another vortex—and one far more volatile than Ukraine.
Iran’s immediate retaliation should not have come as a surprise. Striking Tehran on a Friday—a day of spiritual unity for over a billion Muslims—was more than a military decision. It was a symbolic act, almost certain to provoke a visceral national and religious response.
Iran’s drones arrived by sunset. More will undoubtedly follow in the days ahead. Tehran has already warned it will consider American bases in Iraq, Syria, Qatar and Bahrain fair game, given what it perceives as US complicity with Israel.
This is the trap. When allies act alone—especially in regions as fragile as the Middle East—they can implicate their partners in unintended wars.
The United States did not overtly authorize this strike. But as long as it is seen as Israel’s protector and arms supplier, it becomes vulnerable to the fallout. Washington’s silence and obfuscation in the face of Netanyahu’s recklessness risks being interpreted as consent. And in geopolitics, perception is reality.
The consequences are already materializing. Brent crude oil jumped more than 10% by midday Kuala Lumpur time, with analysts warning of further volatility if the confrontation widens. For Southeast Asia, this matters deeply.
Countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines—net oil importers—will face immediate inflationary pressure. Supply chains already under strain from Trump’s renewed tariff regimes could buckle further. Capital markets, long wary of Middle East shocks, are on edge.
This was not inevitable. Over the past year, there had been slow but promising progress in diplomatic engagement across civilizations. The ASEAN-GCC-China Summit marked one such effort—bringing together key actors from Southeast Asia, the Arab Gulf, and East Asia to focus on economic cooperation, cultural exchange, and regional connectivity.
These efforts were never intended to replace hard power, but rather to soften its edges through dialogue. Netanyahu’s pre-emptive strike threatens to undo that fragile momentum. Civilizational diplomacy cannot flourish amid a hail of missiles. Trust is harder to rebuild than it is to destroy.
Domestically, Netanyahu may believe this operation strengthens his hand. He has long been politically embattled—dogged by corruption trials, mass protests and coalition pressures from ultranationalist partners.
By launching a strike on Iran, he may hope to rally his base, distract from domestic dissent and portray himself as Israel’s last line of defense. But this is a dangerous gamble.
If Iran’s retaliation expands or becomes more lethal, Israel’s internal divisions may deepen. The trauma of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks has not healed.
And polls in Israel suggest growing frustration with Netanyahu’s leadership and the direction of the state. His attempt to appear strong could ultimately backfire.
For Trump, this moment is equally precarious. He came back to office promising peace through strength, but without more wars. If US forces are attacked in the coming days—as Iran has threatened—he will be forced to choose between military response and political restraint. Either choice risks undercutting his narrative.
What this moment demands is urgent diplomacy. The United States, with partners like Turkey, Qatar and even neutral European states, must reestablish backchannels to Tehran.
Israel must be counseled—firmly—that escalation does not serve anyone’s strategic interest, least of all its own. Iran, for its part, must understand that disproportionate retaliation could fracture what limited international sympathy it retains.
There is still time to contain this crisis. But it requires clarity from Washington. Silence will only widen the misunderstanding.
If Trump wants to avoid being dragged into another Middle Eastern war, he must make it clear—publicly—that the United States did not support this strike, and that any attack on US interests will be met with a proportional, not automatic, response.
Great powers are often judged not by how they start wars, but by how they prevent them. Netanyahu’s strike has lit the fuse. It is now up to others to make sure the fire doesn’t reach the powder keg.
The world is watching—not just Tehran and Tel Aviv, but Washington, Riyadh, Doha and Kuala Lumpur too. When allies act alone, the costs are never theirs alone.
