There is widespread awareness of the terrifying possibility of a Third World War in a world that has become increasingly perilous in recent times.
Grant Shapps, the UK Defence Secretary, issued a warning earlier this year that we are transitioning “from a post-war to pre-war world” and that conflicts involving China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran might consume the globe over the next five years.
The exasperation that accompanied the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s has given way to growing fear about Russia’s incursion into Ukraine and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Here’s what they had to say…
The international order is fraying’
Hugh Lovatt, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations thinktank
“The reassuring news is we are not heading towards the Third World War,” he continues.
Even though there are wars and tensions in the Middle East, Asia-Pacific, and the Ukraine, Mr. Lovatt claims that these regions are “separate and not connected.”
“The Gaza war has been going on for six months and is driving regional escalation – Iran’s retaliation against Israel is just the latest example of this.”
The Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping and the ensuing effects on global trade have ramifications for the international community, which includes the UK.
He asserts that there is a chance that British forces will get entangled in a Middle East conflict.
“These dangers should be viewed in their proper context—that is, as threats that affect the UK but do not pose an existential threat.
“This is also taking place at a moment when the global order is deteriorating and under a lot of stress. We ought to be deeply concerned about this.”
“Likely now more than at any other point since the end of the previous world war.”
Deborah Haynes, Sky News security and defence editor
There is already a chance that the magnitude of the unrest trembling some regions of the world, especially the Middle East and Ukraine, will spark the start of World War Three.
Although it is not a given, there is a greater chance of a worldwide conflict now than there has been since the end of the previous one.
The stakes have increased further due to Iran’s decision to launch an unparalleled bombardment of missiles and drones against Israel.
Israel has promised to reply, but its allies—the US and the UK, for example—are pleading for moderation, particularly because they were instrumental in ensuring that the great bulk of incoming weapons were shot out of the sky before they could do any damage on the ground.
If Israel decides to strike back, the situation may still be managed if it limits the scope of its strike and limits any additional Iranian reaction that may be sparked by it. However, those are two large ifs.
Furthermore, there is always a chance of an oversight or miscalculation that triggers an uncontrollably high level of tension to a regional war, even in cases of limited military activity.
The events in the Middle East also affect the rest of the world, particularly as Israel’s strongest friends are mostly Western countries, led by the US, while Iran receives support from Russia and has strong relations to China.
That means that, similar to the ongoing struggle in Europe, the crisis pits authoritarian nations against democracies.
Despite promises of assistance from the West, Russia is gradually taking control of Ukraine. If the balance of military power shifts on the battlefield, the Ukrainian military will almost certainly retreat since Western friends are failing to provide it with the weaponry and ammunition it needs.
Vladimir Putin’s victory in Ukraine would give the president of his “total war”-waging nation more confidence to invade a NATO member state in order to gauge the alliance’s strength.
Once more, this would spark a direct conflict between the autocratic Moscow, armed by North Korea, Iran, and China, and the NATO alliance of the West.
Proof that using military force to subdue Western powers has worked would strengthen China’s resolve to follow through on its promise to reconnect Taiwan with the mainland, even if it means going into invasion.
A similar action might spark strife in Asia as well, pitting authoritarian nations against democracies.
Diversion of attention
Senior Research Fellow Edward R. Arnold is employed by the think tank, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).
“I think people really need to understand what the North Atlantic Treaty is, which is the foundation of NATO,” he states.
According to Mr. Arnold, the general public seems to think that Article 5 of NATO—which states that an assault on one member is considered an attack on all—is automatic.
“That’s not the case or certainly does not have to be the case… escalation is not automatic and there are measures to de-escalate things.”
He claims that there is a greater chance of a misunderstanding between the West and Russia because of the circumstances in Ukraine, where NATO has been supplying arms and support.
“It seems more likely that there will be a misunderstanding and that one ship will unintentionally fire on another.
“We need to be really prepared about what that means.”
Additionally, he makes the case that there is currently less of a threat of a larger conflict with Russia. Although the Kremlin forces are beginning to gain ground in Ukraine, their soldiers’ caliber has drastically declined to the point that they are no longer a threat to NATO.
Mr. Arnold went on, saying, “Vladimir Putin will be monitoring developments in the Middle East very carefully, including how each country reacts and the mere diversion of attention (from Ukraine).”
“It’s all helping Putin at the moment because while focused on the Middle East we are not as focused as we have been on Ukraine.”
Donald Trump could undermine NATO
Senior research fellow Dr. Luigi Scazzieri works at the think tank Centre for European Reform.
“That relies on how you define World War Three. There’s a chance that a battle between Israel and Iran may turn into a major Middle East military confrontation with worldwide ramifications.
“It is quite likely that the US will align itself with Israel, and other Western nations, such as the UK, might follow suit to a lesser degree.
“However, their engagement would be restricted, and this wouldn’t be World War Three, in part because China is unlikely to back Iran and Russia cannot afford to do so.
“A confrontation of this kind would mainly affect Europe economically by further disrupting commerce and energy flows.
The main route to a scenario of World War Three is still a direct conflict between the West and Russia. In the event that Donald Trump triumphs and weakens NATO, Vladimir Putin may be more inclined to attack the Baltic states.
“A clash with Russia would also be quite likely if Western forces become involved in supporting Ukraine in frontline combat roles.”
