Israel's direct air strike on Iran's nuclear and military facilities on June 13 is not merely another skirmish; it is a perilous leap into uncharted territory, threatening the future of not only the Middle East but also the entire world. Teheran's furious denunciation of the strike as a "declaration of war" and its appeal to the UN Security Council underscore the gravity of a conflict with profound, unpredictable consequences. Since then, the two countries have been engaged in tit-for-tat air attacks.

The Israeli strike on June 13 was the stark culmination of a deliberate campaign waged by Israel since late 2023 to dismantle Iranian assets and proxies, from Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon to the Hamas command structures in the Gaza Strip, culminating in a direct blow to Teheran in its most sensitive nuclear sites. The goal? To shatter Iran's strategic resilience and, perhaps, engineer a regime change.

READ MORE: White House: Trump to decide on Iran action in two weeks

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decades-long framing of Iran as the paramount existential threat to Israel provided the ideological bedrock for the strike. His security doctrine, forged on the conviction that survival demands pre-emption, has relentlessly pursued Israeli military supremacy. With Hezbollah weakened, Syria fragmented, and Houthi ambitions curtailed, Iran stood as the final, formidable bastion of resistance.

The timing was calculated: exploit Iran's internal divisions, the isolation of its proxies and the world's focus on the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. By refocusing the spotlight on Teheran, Netanyahu seeks to deflect mounting accusations of genocide in Palestinian territories, accusations now resonating even among allies such as the United Kingdom and France. Simultaneously, the strike delivers what may be a fatal blow to any near-term revival of the Iran nuclear deal.

The geopolitical ripple effects are immediate and deeply ironic. Heightened regional risk has triggered a flight to safety, which in turn has boosted US Treasury yield. This unexpected financial windfall benefits US President Donald Trump, bolstering his domestic narrative after recent setbacks on Liberation Day. Yet this crisis also exposes the incoherence within the current US posture. Contradictory statements from Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio on US support for Israel obliterate any pretence that Washington can serve as an honest broker. The message is chillingly clear: diplomacy is dead; brute force prevails.

Netanyahu's strategy reminds us of familiar, dangerous precedents. The targeted assassinations of scientists and officials mirror Mossad's longstanding campaign to expose Iran's vulnerabilities. And his rhetoric reminds us of former US president George W. Bush's justification for invading Iraq based on phantom weapons of mass destruction.

Today, the parallel persists: despite Israel's persistent alarms, the International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that Iran possesses no operational nuclear arsenal. For Netanyahu, the "nuclear threat" functions primarily as a casus belli for regime change. History, however, offers a sobering lesson: US-led overthrows of regimes in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq brought not stability, but chaos and prolonged suffering to the people. A weakened Iran risks descending into civil strife or fragmentation, with no coherent "day after" plan in place.

The US' shadow looms large. The Netanyahu-Trump nexus is well-documented, and bipartisan US backing for Israel remains a geopolitical constant. Officially, Washington disavowed direct involvement in the strike, yet the signals are unmistakable: bolstered "Iron Dome" deployments, stark travel advisories, and carefully non-committal official statements. Trump's unequivocal social media endorsements leave little doubt about alignment. The United States remains inextricably entangled in this volatile calculus.

The consequences will be grave and enduring. While the damage on the surface is evident, the true setback to Iran's deeply buried nuclear program is unknown, as are the potential radioactive hazards. Crucially, the strike may achieve the opposite of its stated aim. As the world's most scrutinized nuclear aspirant, Iran now has ample justification to accelerate its nuclear program in secret, strengthening its underground deterrent. Netanyahu's offensive may make the atomic threat he fears more imminent, not less, while conferring on Teheran a measure of perceived legitimacy to retaliate under international law.

This escalation also shreds fragile diplomatic threads. The Chinese-brokered rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia hopefully will continue as a rare flicker of hope in a tense region. Israel's strikes on Iran undermines any effort to build a collective security framework and normalizes military force over negotiation as the default mechanism for resolving disputes.

ALSO READ: International community must push for de-escalation in the Middle East

The core dilemma remains: Israel's strike on Iran is a high-stakes strategic gambit, reverberating far beyond the immediate blast zones. It seeks to cripple Iran's nuclear ambitions and regional influence, reasserting Israeli dominance. Yet this assertion risks unleashing cascading retaliation and deeper instability. It delays, rather than advances, the path to peace, entrenching a volatile status quo.

Ultimately, Israel's greatest challenge remains unchanged: securing legitimacy in a region that broadly rejects its presence and questions its moral authority. Precision bombs cannot build the trust, mutual recognition, and robust security guarantees essential for durable peace. The future hinges not only on Teheran's response but on whether global powers can summon the resolve to prevent it from transforming into a wider conflict. History's lesson is unambiguous: pre-emptive wars rarely yield lasting peace. Principled diplomacy, however arduous, is urgently needed before the rhetoric of war solidifies into irreversible reality.

The author is a visiting professor at the China Foreign Affairs University, and senior fellow of Policy Center for the New South, a Morocco-based think tank.

The views don't necessarily represent those of China Daily.