The latest escalation between the United States, Israel, and Iran is not just another Middle Eastern crisis. It may be one of the clearest signs yet that the rules governing global power are changing.

In a statement that stunned diplomats and analysts alike, US President Donald Trump warned that “a whole civilization will die tonight” if Iran failed to comply with Washington’s demands regarding the Strait of Hormuz. The remark was accompanied by threats to destroy Iranian bridges, energy facilities, and other critical infrastructure if Tehran refused to reopen the world’s most important oil chokepoint.

For several tense hours, the world appeared to stand on the brink of a dramatic military escalation. Then came a sudden shift. Just before new strikes were expected, Washington announced a two-week suspension of attacks, presenting it as an opportunity for negotiations.

The abrupt move from apocalyptic threats to a diplomatic pause reveals something deeper about the nature of modern conflict: war is increasingly used not simply as a military instrument, but as a negotiating strategy.

The Return of Coercive Diplomacy
The current US approach toward Iran follows a familiar strategic logic often described as coercive diplomacy. First comes overwhelming military pressure. Then comes the ultimatum. Finally, negotiations are offered as the only way to avoid further escalation. In recent weeks, US and Israeli forces have launched large-scale strikes targeting Iranian military installations, missile systems, and strategic infrastructure.

The objective appears clear: weaken Iran’s military capabilities while forcing Tehran back to the negotiating table.

Yet coercive diplomacy carries a built-in paradox. The more extreme the threat becomes, the harder it is for the targeted country to concede without appearing to capitulate. Instead of compliance, pressure can provoke resistance — or escalation. Iran retains significant options for retaliation.

These range from missile attacks and cyber operations to the use of regional proxy networks. Perhaps most importantly, Tehran could disrupt shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies pass.

Even a limited disruption would reverberate across global energy markets. The crisis is therefore not simply about military confrontation. It is also about the stability of the global economy.

A War That Is Dividing Allies
Equally revealing is how the crisis is exposing growing fractures between the United States and its traditional allies. Unlike previous Middle Eastern conflicts, Washington’s military campaign against Iran has not received automatic backing from Europe. Several NATO members have openly resisted involvement.

Spain has refused to support military operations, while Italy reportedly declined permission for US aircraft linked to Middle East missions to use an air base in Sicily. Other European governments have imposed restrictions on the use of their airspace or military facilities for operations targeting Iran.

These decisions reflect a broader unease in Europe about both the legality and strategic wisdom of the campaign. President Trump has reacted angrily, accusing European governments of benefiting from American security guarantees while refusing to share the burden of military action.

The dispute signals a deeper shift. For decades, US initiatives in major international crises were typically supported — even if reluctantly — by NATO partners. Today, that automatic alignment can no longer be taken for granted. Allies increasingly calculate their interests independently, particularly when the risks of escalation appear high.

The Legal and Moral Debate
The war has also triggered a growing debate over the boundaries of international law. Legal experts and former military officials have warned that threats to deliberately destroy civilian infrastructure — such as electricity networks, bridges, or energy systems — could violate international humanitarian law if such actions primarily affect civilian populations.

Modern societies depend heavily on interconnected infrastructure systems. Disabling power grids, for instance, can affect hospitals, water supply networks, and other essential civilian services.

Critics, therefore, argue that targeting such infrastructure risks blurs the fundamental distinction between military and civilian targets. Supporters of Washington’s strategy counter that Iran’s military capabilities and regional activities justify extraordinary measures.

The debate illustrates a broader dilemma confronting modern warfare: technological and strategic developments increasingly strain the legal frameworks originally designed for more conventional conflicts.

The Global Economic Shockwave
For much of the world, the most immediate concern is not the battlefield but the potential economic fallout. The Strait of Hormuz remains the single most critical energy chokepoint in the global economy.

A significant share of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas exports passes through this narrow corridor between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. Even the perception of instability can push energy prices higher.

If the conflict escalates further, the consequences could extend far beyond the Middle East. Higher oil prices would raise transportation and production costs worldwide. Shipping insurance premiums could surge. Supply chains already strained by geopolitical tensions could face new disruptions.

Trade-dependent regions such as Southeast Asia would be particularly vulnerable. For countries like Indonesia, the economic ripple effects — inflation, higher energy costs, and slowing trade — may prove far more consequential than the military developments themselves.

A Fragmenting Global Order
The crisis also reflects a deeper transformation in the structure of international politics. The post-Cold War order was largely shaped by American dominance and cohesive Western alliances.

Today, that system is evolving into something far more fragmented. Major powers increasingly pursue independent strategies. Alliances have become more conditional. Countries are more cautious about being drawn into conflicts that do not directly serve their national interests.

The tensions between Washington and European governments over the Iran war illustrate this new reality. So does the growing reluctance of many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America to take sides in major geopolitical confrontations. Instead of a single dominant order, the world is moving toward a more fluid system of overlapping coalitions and competing interests.

When Escalation Becomes Strategy
The Iran crisis ultimately highlights a troubling feature of contemporary geopolitics. War is no longer simply the failure of diplomacy. It is increasingly used as an instrument of diplomacy itself. Military pressure is applied to shape negotiations. Threats of escalation are used to force concessions. But this strategy carries enormous risks.

Military actions can spiral beyond the control of those who initiate them. Economic disruptions can cascade across the global system. Political divisions among allies can weaken the very coalitions on which such strategies depend.

The current pause in US strikes may offer a narrow opening for diplomacy. Whether it leads to de-escalation — or merely precedes another round of confrontation—will help determine not only the future of the Middle East but also the stability of the global order.

A New International System?
This crisis is therefore about more than the future of Iran or the balance of power in the Middle East. It reflects the kind of international system that is now emerging. In an era where military pressure, economic disruption, and political signaling increasingly blur together, war is no longer separate from diplomacy — it has become part of it.

For countries far from the battlefield, including those in Southeast Asia, the lesson is stark: geopolitical shocks will increasingly shape economic stability, energy security, and global trade. In a fragmenting world, resilience may become the most important strategic asset of all.

---
Iman Pambagyo is the Trade Ministry’s Director General of International Trade Negotiations (2012-2014, 2016-2020) and Indonesia’s Ambassador to the WTO (2014-2015). The views expressed in this article are those of the author.