According to US president Donald Trump, the world would be safe only if Iran’s nuclear threat was stopped.
However, United Nations Secretary-general Antonio Guterres warned that the strikes were a "dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge — and a direct threat to international peace and security". There was "a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world."
The question everyone is asking is what comes next?
No-one knows, perhaps least of all Mr Trump. It is extremely dangerous to blast away when
the path ahead is so poorly defined. In the bully world of Mr Trump — who ironically called the Iranian regime the Middle East bully — he believes he holds the trump cards. Iran has little choice but to submit.
Its proxy powers in Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria have been emasculated, its economy is in dire straits, and Israel’s bombing has weakened it. Logically, Iran should sue for peace.
Such calculations ignore human nature. Iran, although its harsh regime is widely unpopular, has been attacked by both arch-enemy Israel and the "imperialist" United States. Nationalism and pride demand that it fights back. The same emotions propel the people to support their government.
Israel’s stated aim of prompting regime change looks even less likely. And if it does occur, the replacement could be as bad or worse.
Iran has been backed into a corner, made to look weak, and its leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, humiliated. The imperative is to respond even if Iran harms its own interests.
The forms of retaliation will become apparent in the days ahead. Iran says nothing is off the table. These could include further sponsored terrorism or cyberattacks.
While Mr Trump might claim the US is bringing peace by "obliterating" Iran’s main nuclear sites in a "spectacular military success", there are doubts about both the extent of the success and how far Iran was along any route to nuclear weapons anyway.
Mr Trump has threatened catastrophic consequences should US bases be attacked. He might also discover that more strikes are required to fulfil the stated aim of wrecking Iran’s nuclear capacity. The escalating threats are ominous.
Of course, if the fire blazes into an inferno, US air power would soon devastate traditional Iranian armed forces. But what happens then? Another "forever" US war? Another US "quagmire", as Iran has warned.
There are also questions about how the US would respond if Iran tried to block a key international oil pipeline, the Strait of Hormuz. While that runs counter to Iran’s economic interests, rational decision-making falters in the face of war.
Iran has also said that Washington proved "they only understand the language of threat and force". It warned of "everlasting consequences".
The West, including New Zealand, treads a cautious line and pushes for de-escalation and diplomacy. Nations also seek to avoid offending the vindictive Mr Trump.
The issue of the breach of international law by the US and Israel is dodged. The rules-based order on which small countries like New Zealand rely takes another strike. The UN, yet again, is toothless.
Mr Trump, in his first term, blew up a treaty with Iran that endeavoured to restrict its nuclear bomb capacity. What treaty would satisfy him in 2025?
Iran’s natural reaction, if it was not already doing so, will be to build a nuclear arsenal as quickly as possible, learning lessons from elsewhere. Ukraine must regret giving up its nuclear arsenal voluntarily, and nuclear-armed North Korea is treated with wary caution.
Mr Trump, who repeatedly promised to keep his country out of other people’s wars, has gambled not only on his presidency and legacy but also on international peace and stability.
