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 their 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 dwarf the immediate conflict, sending shockwaves through every corner of the globe.
Western countries were quick to endorse the US-Israeli military action against Iran, effectively tossing international law into a maelstrom of chaos and bloodshed. Yet, these same powers—alongside their Gulf Arab allies—may soon rue their hasty support. Should Iran withstand this onslaught, it has vowed retaliation that could cripple the global economy. But here’s where it gets controversial: Is this truly about nuclear weapons or democracy, or is it a thinly veiled power play with far-reaching consequences?
Two early indicators of Iran’s potential to disrupt global stability are already unfolding: the closure of civilian airports across the Gulf and Iran’s 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 recently highlighted, if Iran manages to resist the world’s most powerful military, the economic shockwaves will soon reach our own shores.
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. 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—potentially sinking a US aircraft carrier with hypersonic missiles or targeting Qatar’s vital LNG liquefaction trains.
And this is the part most people miss: There’s a non-trivial risk that the US and Israel could resort to nuclear weapons if the situation spirals out of control. The US president’s gloating over Ayatollah Khamenei’s death—calling him “one of the most evil people in history”—ignores a crucial fact: Khamenei issued a fatwa in 2003 explicitly forbidding Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet, Western narratives persist in painting Iran as the aggressor, despite evidence to the contrary.
The irony is staggering. One week, Trump claims to have destroyed Iran’s nuclear program, and the next, his negotiator warns that Iran is ‘one week from the bomb.’ This incoherence raises a provocative question: Is the West’s narrative about Iran’s nuclear ambitions a smokescreen for deeper geopolitical goals? The tragic deaths of 150 Iranian schoolgirls serve as a grim reminder of the human cost of these conflicts.
The movements for women’s rights and political pluralism in Iran will not be advanced by this criminal attack, especially when perpetrated by states currently accused of genocide in Palestine. This is a perpetual war against a sovereign Iran, a regional powerhouse capable of counterbalancing the supremacist agendas of Israel and the US. But here’s where it gets controversial: Are Western nations truly champions of democracy, or are they fueling a cycle of violence and domination?
Arab leaders, too, seem to be having second thoughts. Last week, they expressed outrage after US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee endorsed Israel’s biblical claim to land stretching 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,” Huckabee told Tucker Carlson, without a single administration figure challenging his statement.
We should fear a US-Israeli victory. Violent, tyrannical, and expansionist, they would view this as a green light for further crimes against humanity. We are living in a Thucydidean world where the strong impose their will, and the weak bear the brunt. Unilateral violence must not supersede the rule of law.
Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has emerged as a voice of dissent, condemning the strikes as an escalation that fosters a more hostile international order. This positions Spain as a rebel against a militant West that funds genocide, destroys nations, and targets civilians—women, children, and babies—with impunity since World War II.
Cuba, itself under a brutal US blockade, offered a powerful rebuke. President Miguel Díaz-Canel condemned the attacks as a “flagrant violation of international law and the UN Charter,” emphasizing the need for sovereign equality, non-interference, and peaceful dispute resolution. The New York Times even expressed surprise at Australia’s bellicose stance, noting Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s refusal to urge restraint. Similarly, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Christopher Luxon dismissed the UN Charter, endorsing the strikes as a measure to protect international peace.
The West’s behavior is that of tyrants on a rampage. But here’s where it gets controversial: Are we complicit in this cycle of violence by remaining silent? We must ask ourselves: Is this the world we want to leave behind? The time to act—to demand accountability and uphold international law—is now. The consequences of inaction could be irreversible.
