The U.S.-Israel strike on Iran lacks a clear legal basis or credible justification and represents a high-risk gamble by the Trump administration. Despite early military success, the operation faces uncertain prospects, including limited chances of regime change and the risk of prolonged conflict.

Growing instability in the global order and rising uncertainty in relations with major powers are driving countries such as India, Canada, Brazil, and European states to deepen cooperation with one another. These middle powers are increasingly pursuing strategic partnerships, trade agreements, and supply-chain coordination to preserve autonomy and stability amid great-power rivalry.

The death of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in U.S.-Israeli strikes has created leadership uncertainty in Tehran, weakened Iran’s regional network of allies, and accelerated shifts in Middle Eastern power dynamics. For China, the conflict threatens energy supplies and Belt and Road investments while potentially expanding Beijing’s diplomatic role if it maintains neutrality and engagement with all sides.

Critics of the attack on Iran by the United States and Israel point out that US President Donald Trump has no plan for what comes next. And they are not wrong: when Trump boasts that he can resolve wars in a single day, he merely exposes the limits of his attention span. But the real problem is not the shortness of Trump’s time horizon; it’s the narrowness of his threat perception.

Unable to maintain its position of leadership, the United States is severely hindering the progress of other nations. It’s a self-isolating form of hegemony that poses real geopolitical dangers. By openly acknowledging and pursuing exclusive spheres of influence, America is effectively signaling a return to the law of the jungle.

The fragile ceasefire in Gaza reflects accelerating recalibration in the Middle East, as U.S. military maneuvers are giving way to economic development promoted by the Arab states, China and the Global South.

Amid the broader context of its strategic retrenchment in the Middle East, Washington aims to preserve its influence without committing substantial resources, something that requires deft skills — something that Donald Trump lacks.

As evidenced by complicity in the Gaza genocide, the U.S.-Israel military symbiosis in the Middle East is increasingly shunned by the international community. What the region needs is aggressive economic development.

China’s approach to conflict mediation is characterized by what scholars call “quasi-mediation diplomacy,” in which Beijing emphasizes rhetoric and symbolic gestures while avoiding costly commitments. Recent cases show that China prefers strategic ambiguity and bureaucratic caution over assuming a high-profile mediator role.

The stated intentions of France, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia may add to Israel’s growing international isolation and could prompt a reassessment — though not a fundamental shift — in support for Israel by the United States.