Following the bombings of Iranian bases and missile launches against Israel and on American bases, however forewarned to avoid too violent responses, is the risk of a world war truly real?
Many fear it, but the conditions for such an escalation do not appear to be in place.
Unless there is a sudden need for a global economic reset (which is not currently on the horizon), or unless the survival of a nuclear power—such as Israel—is at stake, it’s hard to see how a global conflict could break out.
Unless you want to believe in the determinism of astral conjunctions that would make everyone blind.
There are no clear opposing blocs. Everyone’s interests are, to some extent, undermined by any attempt to alter the current balance. The actions taking place are all focused on energy trade routes and strategic maritime chokepoints because, propaganda narratives aside, what we’re witnessing is nothing more than a geo-energetic and geo-economic restructuring.
So why should the American offensive against Iran lead to a scenario akin to a third world war?
The only major global power significantly affected by post–October 7, 2023 developments in the Middle East is China. But not to the point of going to war—especially given its lack of logistical capacity to fight in the region, unlike the Americans, Israelis, and Sunni powers.
At most, and only if it deems the moment advantageous, China could seize the opportunity to take Taiwan. However, the U.S. has long made it clear it would not defend Taiwan militarily—so as a global casus belli, that remains weak at best.
Could a war between the U.S. and China happen? Possibly in the future, although it remains unlikely. In any case, the deep interdependence between the two countries’ economies and industries would make direct conflict extremely complicated.
Who, then, would step in to defend Iran?
Pakistan, which has supposedly offered nuclear support? Unlikely—most likely just rhetoric. Especially considering it has benefited from U.S. diplomatic backing against India and recently exchanged missile fire with Iran.
North Korea? Even assuming its nuclear capability isn’t entirely a bluff, it has neither the means to deliver weapons to Iran nor a viable platform to launch them.
Turkey? While it expresses public indignation, it is quietly satisfied with the weakening of a strategic rival.
Russia? Despite all the Kremlin’s ties to Iran, it’s well aware that a significant portion of Israel’s population is Russian. And who would Russia go to war against? The United States—its key partner in aerospace and technology—risking nuclear retaliation with American warheads enriched with uranium sold to them by Moscow itself?
The faint-hearted can rest easy, and the frustrated souls hoping for salvation from exotic horsemen of the Apocalypse, riding in from the East or South, will have to come to terms with reality.
What we are witnessing today is merely a redistribution of spoils and territory among the shareholders of the gangster system that has ruled the world since 1945.
There are no real alternative forces in sight. Among neo-communists, neo-Soviets, ayatollahs hostile to life in all its forms, nostalgic imperialists clinging to past glories, and classes defeated by globalization—there is no genuine unity.
They are simply envious of those who have always held power—and who have shaped its language and culture.
Together—or more accurately, separately—they serve as the unions of the global corporate order: useful for managing the foundations and ensuring their harmlessness.
The system constantly regenerates itself through familiar mechanisms.
We cannot expect anything from them other than the pathetic, the ridiculous, the hypocritical, and the grotesque.
They are not morally superior to the dominant powers—only less capable. They resemble them, but are weaker. And replacing something flawed with something worse is not good politics.
What’s needed is the creation of something better—something truly alternative. Not pseudo-alternatives that are authoritarian or liberty-crushing.
Only the material demands of conflict among dominant powers might open spaces for something new to emerge—something not rooted in delusional psychoses like those of the so-called “alternatives” (with the partial exception of China, which follows its own logic—but that’s another matter), but instead grounded in one’s own genetic heritage, land, and in our long-denied Olympic culture.
A culture denied for eighty years—even by all the “alternatives,” including the so-called sovereigntists.
