The original anticipation that the U.S.–Israel attacks on Iran would be limited and conclusive has been challenged by recent developments. What we are witnessing is not a temporary regional fever but a disruption affecting ideology, territory, cyberspace, and global governance.

The conflict is transforming into a new way of warfare in a world where rules are unclear and disorder is common. It is also undermining geopolitical stability, cyberspace, climate resilience, and now food, water, and energy security. From the shadowboxing near the Natanz Nuclear Facility in Iran and the Dimona reactor in Israel to the precarious status of the Strait of Hormuz, the message is clear: instability is no longer an interruption but a new norm.

As the dust from the past days settles, hard truths and predictions have emerged about a war that is rewriting the rules of engagement. Modern conflicts no longer end with treaties or clear demarcations; they transcend them. Even if the thunder of direct missile exchanges subsides, the war is transitioning into a permanent hybrid model—a mix of deniable cyber-strikes, economic sabotage, and proxy attrition.

Realpolitik is no longer a simple chess match but has become an ideological collision. As narratives of "resistance" and "existential security" harden, the political cost of compromise for leaders in Tehran, Tel Aviv, and Washington is becoming increasingly unaffordable. Consequently, the war is now fuelled by domestic identity rather than military strategy.

The territorial sanctity of both Iran and Israel has indeed been breached, marking a transition from proxy warfare to direct conflagration. However, this shift has not resulted in a retreat or concession of strategic space. Instead, both states are engaging in paradoxical "aggressive offensive and defensive manoeuvres," attempting to restore deterrence through vertical escalation.

Although both Israel and Iran have suffered enormous losses to their territorial sanctity and military capabilities, both are trying tooth and nail to conceal their weakness. This has resulted in a persistent, volatile stalemate rather than a retreat.

Traditional alliances are fraying. Gulf states are no longer content being silent partners under Western security umbrellas; they are recalibrating towards "strategic autonomy." This recalibration involves diversifying partnerships—engaging with China and Russia—while simultaneously attempting to manage regional tensions with Iran through de-escalation rather than confrontation.

The four-week war emphasises that direct U.S. involvement can shift the balance but cannot end the war on its own terms; it would remain constrained and evasive

The four-week war emphasises that direct U.S. involvement can shift the balance but cannot end the war on its own terms; it would remain constrained and evasive

Western "security guarantees" have largely become counterproductive. The security guard (the U.S.) has not been able to stop the windows from being smashed. This represents not just a loss of money, but also a loss of safety for the rentier states. Therefore, the Middle East is not stabilising; it is shuffling into new, informal, and often contradictory partnerships.

The world is not returning to a neat, bipolar Cold War; rather, it is in a fragmented and transactional phase of a "no-rules system." Most middle powers are selectively hedging or exploiting the chaos for localised gain. We are entering a period of "antagonistic balancing," where no single hegemon possesses the capital or the will to impose order.

The U.S.-led "power-based order" is fading in favour of a new equilibrium where major players act independently and directly in their own interests. Digital warfare has firmly established itself as a primary and continuous battleground, shifting its role from a supportive function to a major combat component.

Infrastructure hacks and disinformation are now frequently used as frontline weapons in grey-zone operations, designed to disrupt by maintaining surreptitious, long-term persistence within target systems. Unlike conventional warfare, digital attacks often target critical sectors such as telecommunications, undersea cables, and data centres to disrupt global internet connectivity.

Moreover, manipulating the "narrative" through disinformation, coupled with attacks on communication infrastructure, has become normative, undermining political legitimacy and influencing market stability.

The strategy of relying on proxies in the Israel-U.S. strikes against Iran is designed to manage escalation, but it creates a volatile, protracted, and diffused accountability structure. This approach has shifted the conflict from a "swift, decisive outcome" into a "long war of attrition," where Iran and its proxies remain capable of launching retaliatory strikes against U.S. interests and allies, even if the central leadership is degraded.

The use of proxies and fragmented command structures makes it difficult to assign clear responsibility for attacks, complicating diplomatic efforts to end the conflict. While this keeps the conflict contained below the threshold of an all-out global conflict, the creation of a "new architecture of disorder" often backfires, becoming more unpredictable and dangerous for the region and global actors alike.

Economic disruption—described as economic warfare or coercion—is no longer merely "collateral damage"; it is a deliberate tactic to manipulate markets, control infrastructure, and use sanctions to achieve strategic objectives without direct military confrontation. Thus, it has become a core component of modern geopolitics.

However, targeted nations adapt to these pressures by building alternative financial systems and creating a fragmented, less transparent financial environment. This reduces global efficiency and raises long-term inflationary pressures. This tactic enhances ambitions to control the global market for national interests.

Moreover, this war is likely to remain persistent rather than achieving a decisive end or exit ramp. It will be characterised by cycles of escalation followed by exhausted, temporary pauses. The deep distrust on both sides makes the situation more complex, with clear signs that no one will emerge victorious.

Furthermore, the 15-point de-escalatory conditions by the U.S. would likely be unacceptable to Iran. The region will witness continued instability. The past four weeks suggest that this war is less about immediate territorial gains and more about long-term transformation.

It is a contest over the very definition of the international order. To expect a decisive resolution is a dangerous delusion; the more realistic, albeit grim, expectation is a future of evolving, managed instability. The four-week war emphasises that direct U.S. involvement can shift the balance but cannot end the war on its own terms; it would remain constrained and evasive.

It would require a potential alignment between a "changed" Iran and an order based on international law rather than Israel-U.S. supremacy. The endgame sets a goal for Israel to become an undisputed hegemon by obliterating Iran’s nuclear programme and its proxy capabilities, while the U.S. demands the comprehensive subservience of Iran. Both conditions are hard for Iran to swallow, given its survivability.

Therefore, the battle for the soul of 21st-century order has only just begun.

© The Friday Times