Military Science Professor says Middle East conflict highlights the shifting nature of modern warfare

On top of the loss of lives, human suffering and complete devastation of entire populations, the conflict unfolding in the Middle East now extends beyond military confrontation into economic warfare, with implications for global trade and energy security.

In the latest PSG Think Big webinar, Professor Abel Esterhuyse from Stellenbosch University’s Faculty of Military Science joined award-winning journalist Alishia Seckam to explore how the current conflicts, particularly involving Iran, Israel and the United States, are reshaping military strategy and international relations.

“We all know that wars take on a character of their own and I think what unfolded in the war in Iran is beyond what Trump and his team expected,” said Esterhuyse. “Iran have escalated this war and have created a predicament for America with the globalisation of it, with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.”

He explained that while there is always an economic dimension of military action, the longer a confrontation continues, the more important the economic dimension becomes. “This is what we've seen in the last couple of weeks – how the emphasis in American engagement in Iran has shifted from air power and offensive operations to the reality of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open.”

Importantly, Esterhuyse noted that this is a war of choice rather than survival. “There's a long history between America and Iran that comes from the 1970s.”

Speaking to the various tactics or strategies that are in play, Esterhuyse said air power in the Western World is considered a surgical tool. “You can go in, you can do the job, and you can come out. So, it has become the weapon of choice for high intelligence-driven militaries like Israel and America.”

Air power, however, is not good for bringing about political change and in achieving political objectives. “It's a tactical tool of destruction,” notes Esterhuyse. “We have not seen air power being strategically effective in creating definite political outcomes in war. And this is the conundrum that the Americans are faced with at the moment.”

As a result, a limited ground action offensive is likely. “If America wants to achieve some form of strategic effect and is looking for a political outcome, they will have to use ground forces in one way or another,” he said. “And this is what I suspect they will do – to deploy forces in the coastal areas around the Persian Gulf area, to keep the danger of a terror type of attack on oil shipping through the Strait of Hormuz to a minimum.”

Esterhuyse believes the war is sitting at a key junction with a real possibility of de-escalation. “Trump has to make a decision as to whether he's escalating or de-escalating. The path of de-escalation is negotiations, finding countries that may assist the Americans in building bridges with the Iranians and find some way to bring about peace in Iran itself.”

He added that the risk of nuclear escalation, at this point, is low. “I'm cautious in saying that, but I doubt it. What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that the global order is shifting. “We're definitely entering in a new era of political interaction and realities in the world. Countries are placing much more emphasis on their own interests and using power to pursue that interest. Not soft power, but hard power.”

This is evident not only in the actions of the United States, but also in Russia and Israel, where military and economic force have become central tools of statecraft.

For Esterhuyse, this signals a more volatile and uncertain future. While this approach may serve short-term national objectives, it raises broader risks for global stability. “This is, in my opinion, not good for the world at large, but this is the reality of the world that we are faced with at the moment,” he concluded.