Editor's note: Huang Yinan, a special commentator for CGTN, is a Beijing-based analyst of political and international relations. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily those of CGTN.

There is an old Chinese saying that has resonated for centuries, each word carrying weight: "A great nation that is fond of war is doomed to perish." This is not an outdated maxim, but a sober warning forged through the smoke of history. The more turbulent and unstable the world becomes, the more major powers should hold the line – engaging in greater strategic communication instead of hegemonic provocation, while fostering mutual trust and inclusiveness rather than pursuing zero-sum games. Regrettably, some countries have chosen the opposite path, mistaking recklessness for courage and aggression for "justice," clearly failing to grasp the deeper meaning of this Eastern wisdom.

The so-called "Epic Fury" military operation launched jointly by the United States and Israel against Iran is, in plain terms, a high-stakes gamble devoid of regard for consequences – an adventure that shakes the foundations of the international order. The word "epic" may be self-congratulatory rhetoric, but igniting widespread anger across the world is a tangible reality. By bypassing the UN Security Council, disregarding international law, and openly using force against a sovereign state, this action is not "upholding justice." It is a blatant violation of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, elevating the "law of the jungle" at a time when the international order is already fragile.

In recent years, the United States' "irresponsibility" has hardly been a secret. It has aggressively withdrawn from international agreements, undermining the foundations of global governance; overused military force, disrupting global peace; and pursued unilateralism, prioritizing its own interests above international justice. To call it a "disruptor" of world peace and a "destroyer" of the international order would not be an exaggeration. Its use of force against Iran is simply another extension of its hegemonic logic – seemingly fierce, yet in reality accelerating the erosion of its own credibility.

What Washington should carefully weigh is that "those who lift a stone may eventually drop it on their own feet." Iran's retaliation would be far from absent. Direct strikes on Israel would inevitably affect US personnel and military assets. Should Iran block the Strait of Hormuz – through which 20 million barrels of oil transit daily – the global energy supply would be severely disrupted, triggering an immediate energy and fuel crisis. With oil prices soaring, livelihoods impacted, and public approval declining, the political challenges facing the United States – especially in midterm elections – could become even more difficult to navigate. Has Washington calculated this cost? Or has hegemonic hubris clouded its judgment?

History shows that military action is rarely the key to solving problems – particularly in the Middle East, a region already fraught with sensitivity and fragility. Force only breeds further chaos and deeper resentment. Since the end of the Cold War (1991), the United States has launched over 200 military interventions, orchestrating regime changes and promoting "color revolutions" under the banner of unilateralism and hegemony. What has been the result? Not a single one of those countries has achieved the promised "peace and stability." Afghanistan remains scarred by war, Syria continues to suffer immense hardship, and Iraq is left devastated. The latest US–Israel action against Iran risks pushing the Middle East into even deeper fragmentation, intensifying regional contradictions and escalating the likelihood of broader conflict. The Persian Gulf and even Red Sea shipping lanes could become battlegrounds, dragging global energy supplies and the world economy into severe turbulence.

Regardless of whether the United States and Israel escalate or limit the conflict – whether they fight while negotiating, conduct targeted strikes, or combine military pressure with strategic intimidation – one fact is certain: US credibility in international affairs is visibly declining. Increasingly, countries are seeing through Washington's narrative. So-called "allies" are often treated as pawns in maintaining hegemony; so-called "security commitments" can amount to assurances extended for strategic convenience. For smaller states, placing their security in the hands of a hegemonic power's "goodwill" is a risky proposition – neither reliable nor sustainable.

Ironically, the more the United States pursues unilateralism and hegemonic behavior, the faster the process of global multipolarity advances. Countries around the world understand that only by maintaining independence and freeing themselves from hegemonic constraints can they achieve genuine development and safeguard lasting peace and stability.

Today, under the shadow of American hegemony, the world has entered a new period of turbulence and transformation. The law of the jungle appears ascendant, power politics resurgent, and tragedies born of strength overpowering weakness continue to unfold. In stark contrast, China has consistently upheld the vision of building a community with a shared future for mankind, assuming the responsibilities of a major country without seeking hegemony, expansion, or interference in others' internal affairs, and working steadfastly to preserve world peace and stability. Frankly speaking, as China advances along the path of national rejuvenation, it is as sincere and resolute as any major power – if not more so – in its desire for global peace, and in its commitment to promoting peaceful development. This is not rhetoric, but a pledge reflected in concrete actions.

Another ancient Chinese saying goes: "A just cause enjoys abundant support, while an unjust cause finds little." As countries of the Global South rise collectively and prioritize economic development and improving livelihoods, few wish to be drawn into unnecessary wars. Even among America's Western allies, there is growing unease with unilateralism and hegemonic practices, and reluctance to follow blindly. In this context, how much support can Washington truly expect for military action against Iran? How much assistance will it ultimately receive?

Who stands on the side of justice and who does not; who aligns with the tide of history and who defies it – these distinctions are increasingly evident. The present world may be turbulent and unpredictable, but historical rules remain unchanged: Those who are fond of war ultimately bring ruin upon themselves. If the United States persists in its obsession with hegemony and militarism, it will, sooner or later, pay a heavy price for its recklessness and arrogance. That day may be delayed – but it will not fail to arrive.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)