Iran vs. US-Israel: Towards a New World Order
Jakarta (ANTARA) - The conflict between Iran and the United States-Israel axis can no longer be read as merely a regional escalation, but rather as a symptom of the cracking of the global order that has been in place since the end of the Cold War.
From a geopolitical perspective, much like the periods leading up to the First and Second World Wars, the current escalation is not the main cause of changes in the international system, but an accelerator of power shifts that have long been occurring beneath the surface.
In this context, the Iran versus United States-Israel conflict reveals a classic pattern towards the transformation of the world order, namely the increase in direct confrontation after a long period of proxy wars, the disruption of global economic stability, and the beginning of the formation of a new, more fluid and multipolar power configuration.
However, unlike previous world wars, this clash is not supported by a single hegemonic ideology, but by intertwined fragments of interests, identities, and threat perceptions. If the First World War was triggered by an alliance crisis and the Second World War by the expansion of extremist ideologies, then this contemporary conflict more reflects a crisis of legitimacy towards the global order itself.
The common thread that can be drawn is not that the world is heading towards a Third World War in a conventional form, but rather moving into a transitional phase towards a new order that is more fragmented, unstable, and rife with contestation. The Iran versus United States-Israel conflict serves as a pressure point that accelerates the degradation of old dominance, while opening space for new power configurations.
Decapitation Strategy
The decapitation strategy or leadership decapitation in the Iran vs United States-Israel conflict marks a dangerous change in the way wars are conducted. Attacks that directly target political and military elites, even during negotiations, show that war is no longer just about destroying military power, but about cutting off the head of state as the centre of control. This is not an incidental tactic, but a new pattern to cripple a state by eliminating its leadership.
The impact spreads quickly because many countries are beginning to see that there are no longer safe zones, even for heads of state. Concerns are rising that this practice could become a global precedent where leaders can be targeted at any time based on unproven threat allegations.
In Russia, for example, presidential security has been tightened by expanding security perimeters and increasing anti-drone systems around centres of power. China has also reportedly strengthened protection for party and state leadership, including mobility restrictions and enhanced layered security systems in every public activity.
Countries in the Middle East have raised their military alert status and tightened elite security after reports that more than 50 high-ranking Iranian officials were killed in a series of targeted attacks in 2026.
Spotlight on this practice has also emerged in global forums, such as the BRICS Summit, when Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa openly expressed concerns about the new direction of international conflicts. Lula emphasised that the normalisation of targeting state leaders would destroy the foundations of trust in international diplomacy.
Meanwhile, Ramaphosa warned that such practices create a dangerous precedent that could expand conflicts and damage the principle of sovereignty. Both stressed that if heads of state no longer have security guarantees, global stability is under serious threat.