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 erosion 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 tossing international law into a maelstrom of chaos and violence. 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 it might be. First, the closure of civilian airports across the Gulf has halted the daily movement of 500,000 international passengers through hubs like Doha, Abu Dhabi, and Dubai. Second, Iran’s effective shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off the shipment of 21 million barrels of oil and gas daily—a staggering 20% of global daily 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 Iran sinking a US aircraft carrier with hypersonic missiles or targeting Qatar’s liquefaction trains—critical infrastructure for purifying, cooling, and compressing LNG that many economies rely on. But what if things escalate even 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 willing to gamble with such stakes?
US President Trump’s gloating over the death of Ayatollah Khamenei on Truth Social is both chilling and ironic. Khamenei, often vilified, 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 for democracy, or something far more sinister?
The tragic deaths of 150 Iranian schoolgirls serve as a grim reminder that this conflict has nothing to do with democracy or nuclear weapons. The movements for women’s rights and political pluralism in Iran will not be advanced by this criminal attack, carried out by states currently accused of genocide in Palestine. This is a perpetual war against a powerful sovereign nation that could counterbalance a supremacist Israel and the US. But who stands to gain from this?
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) to take 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. Is this the future we want?
We should fear a US-Israeli victory. Violent, tyrannical, and expansionist, they would view this as a stepping stone to further crimes against humanity. We’re living in a Thucydidean world where the strong dominate and the weak suffer. Must unilateral violence triumph over law?
Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has emerged as a voice of reason, condemning the strikes as an escalation that contributes to a more uncertain and hostile international order. Cuba, under its own brutal blockade, also spoke out, with President Miguel Díaz-Canel denouncing the attacks as a flagrant violation of international law and the UN Charter. But where do other nations stand?
The New York Times expressed surprise at Australia’s bellicose stance, noting that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was among the few leaders who didn’t publicly urge restraint. New Zealand’s Prime Minister Christopher Luxon echoed this sentiment, seemingly disregarding the UN Charter in his endorsement of the strikes. Is this the leadership we need in such critical times?
The West is behaving like tyrants on a rampage, and we must ask ourselves: Is this the legacy we want to leave? The world is watching, and the consequences of our actions will shape the future for generations to come. What do you think? Is this conflict justified, or are we sleepwalking into disaster? Let’s start the conversation.
