MARCH 28 — The world is already hurting. What began as a calibrated confrontation in West Asia has now metastasised into a full-blown geopolitical and economic shock that is reverberating far beyond the Middle East.

One month into the conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, the damage is no longer confined to missiles, drones, or strategic facilities.

It is now deeply embedded in global markets, supply chains, and the daily cost of living from Kuala Lumpur to Kathmandu.

At the centre of this intensifying crisis is a dangerous new possibility: the deployment of American ground troops to seize strategic islands in the Strait of Hormuz.

Among the targets reportedly under consideration are Kharg Island — through which roughly 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports flow — and Qashm Island, which overlooks one of the most vital maritime chokepoints in the world.

This is not merely a tactical escalation. It is a structural turning point.

The Strait of Hormuz is not a gate that can be opened or closed at will. It is a fragile ecosystem of competing naval, commercial, and geopolitical interests.

Any attempt to militarily dominate it — especially through ground operations — risks triggering a cascading series of retaliations that no single actor can fully control.

The logic behind such a move is clear. Washington seeks to neutralize Iran’s ability to disrupt global energy flows.

Tehran, in turn, has demonstrated that it possesses both the will and capability to retaliate asymmetrically, not only through direct strikes but also via proxies and maritime harassment.

Yet the assumption that seizing islands such as Kharg or Qashm will stabilize the situation is deeply flawed.

On the contrary, it could plunge the region into an even deeper quagmire.

Iran is not a monolithic state that will simply capitulate under pressure.

Since 2005, it has developed a decentralized command structure across its 31 provinces precisely to survive decapitation strikes.

The recent wave of targeted assassinations — reportedly including senior clerical and political figures — has only reinforced this fragmentation.

There is no single command authority that can guarantee compliance, not even among the highest echelons of the Iranian leadership.

In such an environment, the introduction of foreign ground troops is not a show of strength. It is an invitation to prolonged insurgency, maritime sabotage, and regional spillover.

The Gulf Arab states, from which such an operation would likely be launched, are already paying a steep price. Iranian retaliatory strikes have targeted key energy infrastructure, undermining production and shaking investor confidence.

Anti-Iranian sentiment may be rising in these states, but so too is a quiet anxiety: that they are becoming the frontline of a war they did not choose.

The human cost is equally staggering. At least 1,900 lives have already been lost, and this figure is likely an underestimation.

Each additional escalation compounds the suffering, not only in Iran but across a region already burdened by decades of conflict.

Beyond the battlefield, the economic consequences are becoming impossible to ignore.

Energy prices have surged, with ripple effects across fuel, food, fertilizers, and animal feed. For trading states like Malaysia, the implications are immediate and severe.

Subsidy burdens are rising, inflationary pressures are intensifying, and the delicate balance between fiscal discipline and social stability is being tested.

Even countries that are net energy exporters are not immune.

While higher prices may temporarily boost revenues, they also distort markets, discourage investment, and create long-term vulnerabilities.

The global economy, still recovering from previous shocks, is ill-equipped to absorb another prolonged disruption.

What we are witnessing is not just a regional conflict. It is a systemic shock to the architecture of global trade.

Shipping routes are being recalibrated. Insurance premiums are soaring. Supply chains are fragmenting.

The longer the conflict persists, the more entrenched these disruptions will become, potentially reshaping global commerce for years to come.

And yet, amid this escalating crisis, there appears to be a dangerous absence of strategic restraint.

The United States, under President Donald Trump, is weighing options that could fundamentally alter the nature of the conflict.

Israel continues its operations with a focus on degrading Iran’s military and proxy capabilities. Iran, fragmented yet defiant, is responding in ways that are both unpredictable and deeply destabilizing.

This is a classic security dilemma, but one operating at an accelerated and increasingly uncontrollable pace.

The question, therefore, is not who can win this conflict.

It is whether anyone can.

History offers a sobering answer. Ground invasions in complex, decentralized environments rarely produce decisive outcomes.

Instead, they tend to entrench conflicts, empower non-state actors, and create cycles of violence that are extraordinarily difficult to break.

The Middle East has seen this pattern before. It does not need to see it again.

What is urgently required is a recalibration of strategy — from escalation to de-escalation, from military dominance to political resolution.

This does not imply weakness. On the contrary, it requires a far greater degree of strategic maturity and foresight.

For the United States, it means recognizing that control of territory does not equate to control of outcomes.

For Iran, it means acknowledging that continued disruption of global energy flows will only deepen its isolation and invite further retaliation.

For the Gulf states, it means leveraging their strategic position not as launchpads for war, but as platforms for dialogue.

And for the broader international community, including Asean, it means advocating for restraint while preparing for the economic consequences of a protracted conflict.

Malaysia, as a trading state, cannot afford to be a passive observer. It must deepen and broaden its energy resilience, diversify its supply chains, and work closely with regional partners to mitigate the impact of global disruptions.

At the same time, it should lend its voice — through Asean and other multilateral platforms — to calls for de-escalation and dialogue. The stakes are simply too high.

The world is already hurting. The longer this conflict drags on, the deeper the wounds will become — not just in the Middle East, but across the entire global system.

There is still a way out of this quagmire. But it requires courage — the courage to step back from the brink, to prioritize diplomacy over domination, and to recognize that in a conflict of this magnitude, restraint is not a concession.

It is the only path to survival.

* Phar Kim Beng, PhD is the Professor of Asean Studies at International Islamic University of Malaysia and Director of Institute of International and Asean Studies (IINTAS).

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.