APRIL 2 — The latest rhetoric from Washington marks a dangerous escalation in an already volatile conflict. The monthly energy subsidies of the government have gone from RM700 million to RM4 billion within a month and Malaysian government expects the subsidies to keep going up although it is fiscally unsustainable to keep doing it indefinitely. The war in West Asia must stop. And Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is doing his best to stop it. This is why Malaysians should not string him up for constant and ceaseless criticism. The root cause of this tension is from abroad ie the fight between UD and Israel and Iran, with direct military repercussions on Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) of which the likes of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Oman are our key gas exporters.
When President Donald Trump warns that Iran could be “bombed into the stone age” within two to three weeks at 9pm Eastern Standard time on April 1, the message is not merely directed at Tehran.
It reverberates across the global system—nowhere more so than in Asean.
At the heart of the statement is a claim of overwhelming military success.
Within just four weeks, US forces are portrayed as having dismantled Iran’s conventional capabilities—crippling its navy, degrading its air force, and severely weakening its missile and drone infrastructure.
This compressed timeline suggests a doctrine of rapid dominance: a belief that modern warfare can be accelerated into a short, decisive campaign.
Yet such claims must be treated with caution.
Even if Iran’s conventional capabilities have been degraded, its capacity for asymmetric retaliation remains intact.
Attacks on shipping lanes, especially around the Strait of Hormuz, have already disrupted global energy flows. This alone is enough to send oil prices upward, with immediate consequences for trade-dependent regions such as Southeast Asia.
The economic transmission is swift and unforgiving.
Higher energy prices translate into rising costs for transportation, fertilizers, and industrial production. In turn, this drives up the price of food and animal feed.
For Asean economies—many of which rely heavily on imported energy and agricultural inputs—the result is inflationary pressure that can strain households, businesses, and government budgets alike. This is why rhetoric matters.
When the United States signals a willingness to escalate military operations within a defined two- to three-week window, markets react. Insurance premiums for shipping increase.
Supply chains become more cautious. Investors price in risk. The mere expectation of intensified conflict can have real economic consequences, even before any additional strikes are carried out.
The strategic logic behind Washington’s position is clear: to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to dismantle its ability to project force.
Past actions, including the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani and the withdrawal from the nuclear agreement, are now being framed as necessary steps in a longer campaign of containment.
But the current phase appears to go further.
Operations described as “Midnight Hammer” and “Epic Fury” suggest a shift toward comprehensive coercion—targeting not just military assets, but the broader infrastructure that sustains Iran’s defense capabilities.
At the same time, there is an acknowledgment that Iran retains the ability to reconstitute its nuclear program, potentially in more dispersed and harder-to-target locations.
This creates a paradox.
The more pressure is applied, the greater the incentive for Iran to adapt, decentralize, and retaliate asymmetrically. In such a scenario, the conflict risks becoming prolonged rather than resolved—precisely the outcome that global markets fear most.
For Asean, the implications are severe.
The region sits at the receiving end of these shocks. It is not a direct participant in the conflict, yet it bears a disproportionate share of the economic consequences.
Rising fuel costs affect transportation and manufacturing. Higher fertiliser prices impact agriculture. Food inflation becomes a political and social challenge.
Malaysia, in particular, must tread carefully.
While the country is not in an immediate crisis, it is highly exposed to global price movements. Subsidy burdens could increase. Inflationary pressures may intensify. The challenge is to manage these external shocks without undermining fiscal stability.
At the regional level, Asean must reinforce its role as a stabilising force.
This includes strengthening intra-regional trade, enhancing energy cooperation, and accelerating long-discussed initiatives such as the Asean Power Grid.
At the same time, Asean must continue to support diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions in West Asia.
The alternative is deeply troubling.
If rhetoric translates into action—if the promised escalation within two to three weeks materialises—the world could face a new phase of instability.
Not a quick resolution, but a prolonged period of uncertainty marked by disrupted energy flows and volatile markets.
In such a context, the language of overwhelming dominance may offer short-term deterrence, but it carries long-term risks.
For Asean, the priority must remain clear: to shield its economies, protect its populations, and advocate for restraint in a world that is edging dangerously close to further escalation.
Above and beyond, just as Iraq was once inflicted with the same aggression that bombed them into the “stone age” in Operation Desert Storm I, where Edward Said called it the “Nintendo War”, Iran risks receiving the same fate in the not too future and the world should not take the rhetoric of Trump lightly since the US has done this to Iraq before, another Shia majority country.
* Phar Kim Beng is professor of Asean Studies and director of the Institute of International and Asean Studies, International Islamic University of Malaysia.
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
