![TOPSHOT - Motorists drive their vehicles past a billboard depicting named Iranian ballistic missiles in service, with text in Arabic reading "the honest [person's] promise" and in Persian "Israel is weaker than a spider's web", in Valiasr Square in central Tehran on April 15, 2024. Iran on April 14 urged Israel not to retaliate militarily to an unprecedented attack overnight, which Tehran presented as a justified response to a deadly strike on its consulate building in Damascus. (Photo by ATTA KENARE / AFP) (Photo by ATTA KENARE/AFP via Getty Images)](https://theintercept.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/GettyImages-2147824202-e1729969163927.jpg?fit=5670%2C3830&w=1200)
Photo: Atta Kenare/AFP via Getty Images
If you ask the average citizen of any country whether their leaders should start wars, almost all would give a resounding “No.” The public, overall, opposes war, but tolerates leaders who prioritize power, legacy, and special interests over the wishes of their own people.
This is how we find ourselves recklessly stumbling toward a global conflict that could erupt out of the regional crises currently unfolding.
With its early Saturday morning attack, Israel is on the verge of dragging the U.S. into a regional war with Iran.
Let’s start with the Middle East. With its early Saturday morning attack, Israel is on the verge of dragging the U.S. into a regional war with Iran. The plans were drawn up weeks ago and, despite U.S. warnings, Israel went ahead with the bombing.
Though, for the moment, Iran seems to be exercising restraint, U.S. leadership seems to not be up for the challenge of averting this conflagration. The Biden administration has proven ineffective. Not only has it failed to secure a ceasefire in Gaza, the administration is also emboldening Israel by providing military assistance against retaliatory attacks from Iran.
For its part, Israel keeps pushing the envelope, ignoring U.S. pleas for restraint, confident that powerful Israel lobby groups will ensure American politicians will continue to supply them with money, weapons, and intelligence.
Enter Russia and Ukraine
A regional Middle East conflict could itself grow into larger war — by dragging in Russia. Given its presence in Syria, there is no predicting exactly how Russia might react to a regional war with U.S. involvement. What we do know is that Russia has issued ominous warnings to Israel about attacking Iranian nuclear sites — warning that will now be tested.
The Russian stance is not difficult to understand. For the U.S., a regional Middle East war would mean jumping into Israel’s fight. For Russia, isolated on the world stage, the region holds the key to a web of interlocking interests. Russia buys drones and ballistic missiles from Iran for use against Ukraine, and Iran, for its part, is perpetually a potential customer for Russia’s sophisticated defense systems.
Then there is the war in Ukraine itself, where the sides for a global conflict were drawn up. NATO members, bound by a mutual defense pact, are supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia. As a response, four countries are coming together as “the axis of resistance” — against, as how Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell refers to it, the new “axis of evil”: Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.
As part of its alliance, the West continues to supply military equipment with more offensive capabilities. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wants long-range missiles that can attack deeper into Russian territory. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly warned that if certain red lines get crossed, he will retain the right to use tactical nuclear weapons.
So far, the West has crossed a few of Putin’s red lines without consequence. The question we might ask is: How long do both sides want to play this Russian roulette?
Both the Middle East and Ukraine conflicts create a growing risk that the U.S. and NATO and end up in direct confrontation with Russia and its allies — the new world war.
Snowball in the Far East
If this world war breaks out along the lines of the Middle East war and Ukraine conflict, there is no reason to think the conflagration would be contained.
Any number of miscalculation or military accident in either the Taiwan Strait or South China Sea could trigger direct confrontation between China — unlike Russia, an ascendant world power — and the U.S.
A wider war in Easter Europe or the Middle East could, for instance, give China an opening to go to war over Taiwan. So far, China seems in no rush to invade, tacitly accepting the U.S. policy of “strategic ambiguity” — where the U.S. remains deliberately vague on whether it would defend Taiwan militarily.
A wider war in Easter Europe or the Middle East could give China an opening to go to war over Taiwan.
If the West becomes embroiled in a full-scale war with Russia or in the Middle East, that calculation could change.
Even short of an invasion of Taiwan, China is likely to leverage a distracted West into ever more aggressive actions in the South China Sea, where the potential for conflict is high.
The burgeoning Eastern power is already carrying out its own version of the Monroe Doctrine. Flouting international law, China is flexing its muscle by claiming control over navigation pathways that threaten the neighboring countries of Vietnam, Malaysia, and the Philippines — the latter of which bears the brunt of Chinese harassment and, ominously, has a mutual defense pact with the U.S.
History as Our Guide
There are two absolute truths about war. Once started, the outcome is unpredictable. Secondly, and more importantly, wars always escalate. We are witnessing conflicts on three fronts that are exhibiting both characteristics.
History is a powerful teacher, and it’s time we dust off a few history books. Much of what is occurring on today’s geopolitical chessboard has analogues to events that unfolded in the early 20th century.
Due to arrogance and sheer folly, the relationships between the three cousins — King George V of Britain, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia — deteriorated due to a mix of personal, political, and national factors. This ultimately contributed to the outbreak of the colossal sibling squabble we know as World War I.
Much like today, several key factors set the stage for the First World War. Militarism and nationalism were on the rise, and an arms race between major powers raged. European empires were engaged in intense competition for global dominance and access to resources, particularly in Africa.
As it is today, the powers divvied up into alliances: The Triple Alliance between Germany, Austria–Hungary, and Italy (though Italy later withdrew) on one side, and the Triple Entente, with a surrounded Russia joining France and the United Kingdom. In a scenario with echos today today, these alliances were meant to provide mutual defense but also created a precarious situation where a conflict involving one member could quickly spiral into a wider war.
Many of today’s politicians cater to the donor class and special interests that favor conflict.
Those were empires. Their subjects could be excused for their inability to sway their leaders, whose sheer stupidity they would always be subject to. Today, some of the players fit this bill — but not all.
In the democratic West, we are supposed to have a voice. Yet, many of today’s politicians, with the help of the mainstream media, seem indifferent to the desires of their voters, catering instead to the donor class and special interests that favor conflict.
In this dizzying milieu of crisscrossed global interests and unaccountable leadership, our odds can look daunting. Yet those of us bestowed with the right to press our governments must continue to press policy makers to stop this madness before it’s too late.
