As tensions between the United States and Iran near war, the world is watching closely to see whether Iran escalates further or chooses peace. After taking bold and controversial military steps against Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure, former U.S. President Donald Trump claimed they have successfully asserted American dominance while discouraging further aggression by Iran. Now comes the question: If Iran ceases their retaliatory measures now, could Trump’s high-risk gamble eventually pay off?
The latest crisis erupted following U.S. airstrikes that hit key Iranian sites reportedly central to Iran’s nuclear development – such as Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz. President Trump and his allies presented these strikes as decisive acts to stop Tehran’s march toward nuclear capability while punishing Tehran for supporting attacks against U.S. personnel and allies across the Middle East.
Iran issued strong warnings and took symbolic countermeasures, yet refrained from large-scale military retaliation. This relative restraint has given rise to speculation that Tehran may be weighing the risks involved with military confrontation and opting instead for diplomatic or economic reconciliation measures.
“Trump’s move – as controversial as it may have been – may have yielded short-term strategic benefits,” according to General James Hartley (Ret.), a former Pentagon official. He showed force without drawing the U.S. into prolonged ground conflict, said Hartley.
Trump has often been criticized for his unpredictable and confrontational foreign policy approach, often described as unpredictable and confrontational. Yet this latest development may further solidify his belief in coercive diplomacy. After his strike was carried out against Iran, President Trump claimed “peace through strength works”, noting the lack of immediate escalation from Iran as proof that his approach had produced results without U.S. casualties being sustained as evidence that his approach worked successfully.
Analysts caution it may still be too soon to declare victory; Iran could opt to bide its time and use proxy attacks from Lebanon, Syria or Iraq against U.S. interests or Israeli targets directly or through cyber warfare and economic sabotage as weapons for revenge against Washington or Israel. “Iran doesn’t always respond with direct missile strikes,” noted Middle East scholar Dr. Tara Sadeghi: “Their strategy typically involves patience and asymmetry.”
International opinion remains deeply divided. Some Western allies expressed cautious approval of the strikes’ tactical precision while others warned that unilateral military actions further destabilized the region and undermine multilateral diplomacy. China and Russia strongly condemned U.S. attacks as violations of international law and called upon both parties to pull back from the brink.
On the streets of Tehran, nationalist sentiment has surged with government-supported rallies denouncing American aggression. Yet within Iran’s leadership circles there is internal debate as to whether to respond with force or prevent further economic collapse through restraint.
Trump’s high-risk strategy may ultimately reap short-term geopolitical gains; whether or not that translates to long-term stability remains uncertain and only time — and Tehran — can answer.
The Middle East remains a source of instability. Recent tensions between Israel and Iran, despite calls for ceasefires, demonstrate just how deep-seated their rivalries are. Meanwhile in Africa power vacuums in countries like Sudan and the Sahel have led to coups and militant activity while global institutions such as the UN seem increasingly disregarded owing to vetoes and political gridlock.
Multipolarity — with countries such as India, Brazil, Turkey and Saudi Arabia adopting independent foreign policies — has further complicated global alignments. Nations like these use their strategic importance to navigate between major power blocs without fully aligning themselves to one group, creating a patchwork of temporary partnerships and transactional diplomacy rather than lasting alliances.
Technology and information warfare are exacerbated by disorder. Cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns and AI-powered surveillance have become standard tools of statecraft – blurring the distinctions between war and peace, civilian and combatant, creating an online battlefield which fuels mistrust between nations while complicating traditional conflict resolution mechanisms.
Prof. Michael Hsu, an NYU international relations expert, described the new world (dis)order as marked by uncertainty and fragmentation. There’s no longer one dominant ideology or model governing global affairs – power has spread more diffusely and this makes the world more dangerous.”
As governments struggle to adapt to these rapid shifts, citizens around the globe are feeling their effects — from inflation and energy shortages to rising nationalism and social unrest. Amid all this discord and disruption lies one question: can a new balance be established, or is our world headed down an endless spiral of discord and disruption?