The world teeters on the brink of economic chaos as Western nations align with US and Israeli actions against Iran, potentially igniting a conflict with devastating global repercussions.
This weekend's swift endorsement of US and Israeli strikes on Iran by Western governments, including Australia and New Zealand, has ignited serious concerns. While presented as a decisive move, this decision carries the grave risk of economic catastrophe, a dangerous escalation across the region, and a further weakening of international law. It's a bold gamble that these same Western powers, alongside their Gulf Arab allies, might soon come to regret.
But here's where it gets controversial: Should Iran withstand the current onslaught, it has explicitly stated its intention to retaliate in ways that could cripple the global economy. Imagine the immediate impact: the closure of all civilian airports across the Gulf, halting the daily transit of 500,000 international passengers through hubs like Doha, Abu Dhabi, and Dubai. Simultaneously, Iran's potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for global trade, could cut off the daily shipment of 21 million barrels of oil and gas – a staggering 20% of global daily requirements. The ripple effects of a prolonged conflict are almost beyond comprehension. As previously noted, if Iran manages to resist what is considered the world's most powerful military, the economic shockwaves will inevitably reach our own shores.
Countries like Australia and New Zealand could find themselves in a desperate bidding war for essential resources like oil, LNG, and agricultural petrochemicals if the Strait of Hormuz remains inaccessible. It's crucial to remember that Iran possesses thousands of short-range missiles and a vast network of mines along its coastline, making complete suppression of these threats an incredibly difficult, if not impossible, task.
And this is the part most people miss: While the assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader might be met with celebration in some Western capitals, a decapitation strike could provoke a furious and desperate Iran into lashing out. This could manifest as sinking a US aircraft carrier with hypersonic missiles or disabling Qatar's crucial liquefaction trains, which are indispensable for many economies reliant on LNG. Furthermore, there's a significant, non-trivial risk that the US and Israel might resort to using nuclear weapons if the situation deteriorates dramatically.
The US president's triumphant declaration on social media, "Khamenei, one of the most evil people in History, is dead," stands in stark contrast to the reality that Ayatollah Khamenei had actively worked to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He issued a religious decree, a fatwa, in 2003 explicitly forbidding the pursuit of nuclear arms. Ironically, both Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian, who campaigned on a platform of de-escalation with the US, were targeted in this weekend's missile strikes – a scenario where a president advocating for peace is targeted alongside another.
This situation highlights the apparent incoherence of Western policy. On one hand, former President Trump championed the complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear program, while on the other, his negotiator stated in February that Iran was merely "one week from the bomb-grade uranium." This raises a critical question: for the past 20 years, or over 1000 weeks, has the focus truly been on nuclear weapons, or has it served as a pretext for something else entirely?
Many believe this conflict is not fundamentally about nuclear weapons or even democracy. The tragic deaths of 150 Iranian schoolgirls serve as a grim reminder of the human cost. The movements for women's rights and political pluralism within Iran are unlikely to be advanced by what is being described as a criminal attack by states currently involved in conflicts in Palestine. This appears to be the beginning of a protracted conflict against a sovereign Iran, a nation that could potentially serve as a crucial regional counter-balance to an expansionist Israel and the United States.
Interestingly, Arab leaders seem to be reconsidering the benefits of Iran's destruction. Recent remarks by a US Ambassador, suggesting it would be acceptable for Israel to fulfill its territorial ambitions stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, have sparked outrage. This proposed land grab would encompass modern-day Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and parts of Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The lack of a strong rebuke from the US administration for such a statement is concerning.
We should all be deeply concerned about a victory for the US and Israel. Their history of violent, tyrannical, and expansionist actions suggests that victory over Iran could be seen as a mere stepping stone to further transgressions against humanity. We are witnessing a modern interpretation of the Thucydides Trap, where the powerful act according to their will and the less powerful endure the consequences. The question remains: can unilateral violence truly override the principles of international law?
Spain's Prime Minister has strongly condemned the US and Israeli strikes, stating, "We reject the unilateral military action of the United States and Israel, which represents an escalation and contributes to a more uncertain and hostile international order." This stance positions Spain as a dissenting voice against a West that is accused of funding and perpetuating conflict, destroying nations, and causing immense civilian casualties.
Cuba, itself facing a severe blockade, has also voiced its condemnation. President Miguel Díaz-Canel labeled the attacks a "flagrant violation of International Law and the UN Charter." The Cuban Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasized the paramount importance of respecting international law, including the sovereign equality of states, non-interference, and the peaceful settlement of disputes.
The New York Times expressed surprise at Australia's assertive position, noting that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was among the few leaders who did not publicly call for restraint. He stated, "We support the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran continuing to threaten international peace and security." Similarly, New Zealand's Prime Minister Christopher Luxon echoed this sentiment, stating, "We acknowledge that the actions taken overnight by the US and Israel were designed to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security."
This behavior from Western powers resembles that of rampaging tyrants. The question we must ask ourselves is: can this be stopped?
