The United States’ bombing of Iranian nuclear sites marks a perilous new chapter, not only for the Middle East but for the entire global order.
President Trump declared the mission a “spectacular success” after B-2 bombers left Missouri in the United States and travelled over 30 hours to destroy nuclear facilities in Iran. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth praised “our boys in those bombers” — though one of the pilots was a woman — as they returned home. The speeches came fast. The metaphorical fisty-pumps hit high, as if this was a video game played in a loungeroom, rather than a provocation with global consequences.
The strikes followed days of posturing, with Trump declaring a decision would be made within “two weeks,” a move media commentators hailed as tactically “clever.”
Perhaps Iran’s nuclear capabilities have been destroyed, although taking Trump at his word is difficult. But what has been obliterated further is any faith in a rule-based international order. As US Secretary-General Antonio Guterres noted, “We now risk descending into a rathole of retaliation after retaliation.”
The fake timeline and pre-emptive strike set a chilling precedent: if the world’s most powerful democracy can so quickly abandon diplomacy for bombs with no accountability, what stops others from doing the same? And what prevents a president like Trump, drunk on his claims of success and images of the US military at work, from upping the ante elsewhere?
Even if a fast regime change miraculously occurs in Iran, a scenario that’s unlikely and fraught with dangers, the message has been sent.
The self-declared US “President for Peace” is clearly anything but. His feigned openness to negotiation will fool no one next time. We are no longer in a world of soft power, diplomacy, and negotiations. We have been dragged decades into the past into an era of hard power—only this time, it carries far deadlier weapons and fewer constraints.
To be clear: this is not to condone Iran’s actions and desire to have nuclear weapons. Nor is it to ignore what a regime change could mean for a future Iran and its people, especially women’s rights. Instead, it’s to call out the new era of international standards. The further deliberate undermining of international law. The further neutering of the United Nations. The normalisation of burte-force foreign policy. The complete disregard for civilian populations.
Numerous international lawyers have labelled the attacks as unlawful, including Ben Saul from the University of Sydney, who declared that they amounted to an “international crime of aggression” and a “new low” in eroding international law.
And the international response to Trump’s escalation? Tepid. Especially from those who previously called for diplomacy. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese released a media statement that failed to reference the American military action, declaring “we note the US president’s statement that now is the time for peace”. It added that Australia continues “to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy” despite being fully aware that such possibilities ended as the B-2s left the Midwest of America. The Coalition, meanwhile, declared it “stands with the United States of America today.”
UK PM Keir Starmer moved to reassure the British public that they are doing “everything we can to stabilise the situation” and called for a return to the negotiating table, but failed to stop the strikes timed to destroy that possibility.
What’s missing in these declarations of unity and strength is any real mention of the human cost — not just in the direct conflict zones, but in the ripple effects that follow: the mass displacement, hunger, gender-based violence, economic upheaval. Iran’s parliament has already voted to shut the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil flows, with consequences that will see a spike in oil prices and potentially a global recession. Adequately addressing issues like women’s rights, hunger, and growing inequality in climate change will conveniently slip even further down the priority list.
The world is stretched thin to deal with yet further escalating conflict in the Middle East and elsewhere. Every system meant to respond—humanitarian, economic, ecological—is already buckling.
As Mirjana Spoljaric, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, warned: “The world cannot absorb limitless war. Upholding international law is not a choice—it is an obligation.”
She outlined the readiness of the Red Cross following these strikes, noting that the humanitarians and personnel are ready to support civilians. But she was also clear: “No humanitarian response can substitute for political will to prioritise peace, stability and human life.”
Can we expect political will to prioritise peace? Can we expect decisions to be made in the interests of human dignity and peace? Can we really expect others to share restraint in the interests of diplomacy and human dignity while others act on ego, interest, and control?
These architects of conflicts are insulated from their consequences. They do not fight, flee, or rebuild. They do not bear the human costs or pay the personal tolls. They do not feel or take on the pain and care required for those affected. Those costs are paid by others, particularly by women, children, civilians, and those displaced.
What Trump sees as a “spectacular success” could turn out to be a catastrophic precedent and signal to other world leaders what action they can pursue. This is not courageous strength. It’s power without accountability, and seemingly now violence without end.