The world is teetering on the edge of a precipice, and the global economy hangs in the balance. If Iran resists the recent US and Israeli strikes, the consequences could be catastrophic. Western nations, including Australia and New Zealand, have rallied behind this aggressive move, but this decision may unleash a Pandora’s box of economic turmoil, regional instability, and the further dismantling of international law. And this is the part most people miss: the potential fallout could reshape the global order in ways we’re only beginning to understand.
Western countries were quick to endorse the US-Israeli military action against Iran, effectively casting international law aside in favor of bloodshed and chaos. But here’s where it gets controversial: these same Western powers, along with their Gulf Arab allies, may soon find themselves regretting this decision. If Iran withstands this onslaught, it has vowed to retaliate in ways that could cripple the global economy. But is this retaliation already underway?
Two early indicators suggest Iran’s capacity to disrupt global stability: the closure of civilian airports across the Gulf and the effective shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz. The former halts the daily movement of 500,000 international passengers through hubs like Doha, Abu Dhabi, and Dubai, while the latter cuts off the shipment of 21 million barrels of oil and gas daily—a staggering 20% of global requirements. The ripple effects of a prolonged conflict are almost unimaginable. As I highlighted in a recent article, if Iran manages to resist the world’s most powerful military, the shockwaves will reverberate through our own economies. But how prepared are we for this scenario?
Countries like Australia and New Zealand could find themselves on the losing end of a bidding war for oil, LNG, and agricultural petrochemicals if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed. It’s worth noting that Iran possesses thousands of short-range missiles and countless mines along its coastline, making suppression nearly impossible. Is this a risk worth taking?
For now, the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader may be celebrated in Western capitals, but a decapitation strike could provoke a desperate or furious Iran to retaliate fiercely. Imagine the sinking of a US aircraft carrier using hypersonic missiles or the destruction of Qatar’s liquefaction trains, which are vital for purifying, cooling, and compressing LNG essential to many economies. But what if things escalate further? There’s a non-trivial risk that the US and Israel could resort to nuclear weapons if the situation spirals out of control. Are we prepared for that?
“Khamenei, one of the most evil people in history, is dead,” gloated the US president on Truth Social. Yet, in reality, Ayatollah Khamenei was the very figure who issued a fatwa in 2003 prohibiting Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Alongside President Masoud Pezeshkian, who campaigned on easing tensions with the US, Khamenei was targeted in this weekend’s missile barrage. Is this truly a battle of good versus evil, or is the narrative more complex?
The Western narrative is so mendacious and incoherent that one week, Trump boasts of destroying Iran’s nuclear program, and the next, his negotiator claims Iran is ‘one week from the bomb.’ For two decades, Netanyahu has brandished his bomb diagram, yet the real issue has never been about nuclear weapons—or, most absurdly, democracy. The tragic deaths of 150 Iranian schoolgirls stand as a grim reminder of this. But who is truly benefiting from this conflict?
The movements in Iran for women’s rights and political pluralism will not be advanced by this criminal attack, especially when the perpetrators are states accused of committing genocide in Palestine. This is a perpetual war against a powerful sovereign Iran, a nation capable of counterbalancing a supremacist Israel and the USA. But is this war truly about freedom and democracy, or is it about dominance?
Arab leaders seem to be having second thoughts. Last week, they expressed outrage after US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee suggested he’d be fine with Israel fulfilling its biblical promise (Genesis 15:18) of taking all the land from the Nile to the Euphrates—a land grab encompassing modern-day Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and parts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. “It would be fine if they took it all,” he told Tucker Carlson. But is this the future we want?
We should fear a US and Israeli victory. Violent, tyrannical, and expansionist, they would see this as a stepping stone to further crimes against humanity. We are living in a Thucydidean world where the strong do as they please, and the weak suffer the consequences. But must unilateral violence triumph over law?
Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez slammed the strikes, calling them “an escalation that contributes to a more uncertain and hostile international order.” This positions Spain as a rebel against a militant West that funds genocide, destroys nations, kidnaps and kills leaders, and targets civilians—women, children, and babies—in foreign lands since World War II. But who will stand up for justice?
Cuba, under its own brutal blockade, condemned the attacks as “a flagrant violation of international law and the UN Charter.” Its Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasized the need for strict respect for international law, sovereignty, and peaceful dispute resolution. But are we listening?
The New York Times expressed surprise at Australia’s bellicose stance, noting Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s unwavering support for the US. New Zealand’s Prime Minister Christopher Luxon echoed this sentiment, seemingly disregarding the UN Charter. But at what cost?
The West is behaving like tyrants on a rampage. We must be stopped. But the question remains: Will the world wake up before it’s too late? What do you think? Is this conflict a necessary evil, or a dangerous escalation? Let’s discuss in the comments.
