This wasn’t World War III—but it may prove to be a step toward it. Just as there were many steps leading up to World War II. Ask the Chinese, and they’ll say it began with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. Ask the Ethiopians, and it started with Mussolini’s 1935 invasion. Ask the Czechs and Slovaks, and it began in 1938. In every case, international law was violated with blatant, unprovoked aggression—and either no explanation or a fabricated one
The aftermath of the Twelve-Day War between Israel and Iran remains unresolved. Both sides tally their costs: lives lost, buildings destroyed, missiles depleted, intelligence networks exposed. How many Iranian nuclear scientists remain? How many Mossad agents are still active? What is the condition of the bombed facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan? How many centrifuges are still spinning—producing enriched uranium? And what happened to the 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium that Israel set out to neutralise—or was it to disperse across the Middle East as radioactive dust? Unlikely.
Israel’s stated goals—the destruction of Iran’s nuclear programme, followed two days later by the aim of regime change—remain unfulfilled. Despite the casualties, Iran still retains the knowledge and capacity to enrich uranium and develop ballistic missiles. Even if the three key facilities were destroyed, they can be rebuilt, deeper underground, beyond the reach of any Massive Ordnance Penetrator. As for regime change, the people of Iran showed no inclination to overthrow the Islamic Republic. And why would they? Faced with external missile strikes, citizens tend to set aside internal differences. Just ask the Serbs about 1999.
At the recent NATO summit in The Hague, the prime ministers of Japan and South Korea declined to attend another round of European posturing
Still, Prime Minister Netanyahu did manage to draw U.S. President Donald Trump into the confl ict. Yet the American intervention lasted less than 48 hours, resulted in zero casualties, and caused—so far—uncertain but likely negligible damage. In return, Iran responded with an equally measured strike on the U.S. base at al-Udeid in Qatar, again with zero casualties. Was this Trump’s brand of peacemaking? A carefully staged exchange that allowed Israel to appear victorious through American action, without further escalation? Or was it another episode of Trump’s political theatre—partially scripted, with every player claiming success, and a global audience left watching an anticlimax?
This wasn’t World War III—but it may yet become a step toward it. Again, ask the Chinese, Ethiopians, or Central Europeans what the early signs looked like. All involved unlawful aggression, met with inertia or appeasement. So what was the Israeli strike on Iran, if not aggression— dressed up as “preventive war” and swallowed only by the leaders of most European nations? In the 1930s, the League of Nations remained silent. Today’s chorus of European ministers, chancellors, and prime ministers makes one nostalgic for that silence. Instead, we now hear condemnations of Iran and praise for Israel doing the “dirty work” of— whom, exactly? European civilization, Herr Merz?
It hardly matters. As Europe’s economy and vision diminish, other regions are seeing more clearly what the emerging global order truly is— and recalculating accordingly. At the recent NATO summit in The Hague, the prime ministers of Japan and South Korea declined to attend another round of European posturing. Reason lives elsewhere.