War : Survivors, Memory, and Moral Responsibility (11)

During a fierce engagement on the Somme battlefield, a British officer spotted a German Jerry impaled upon the barbed wire in No Man's Land, writhing in sheer agony. The shellfire was heavy, yet the wounded soul remained suspended there.

At last, the Englishman could stomach it no longer. He remarked quite coolly: “I say, I simply can't bear the sight of that poor fellow.”

He stepped out into the tempest of iron, freed the sufferer, hoisted him onto his shoulders, and carried him over to the German trench. The strafing ceased at once. Both sides looked on with utter amazement.

Then, the German commander stepped forward from the parapet, plucked the Iron Cross from his own tunic, and pinned it upon the breast of the British officer. 

The humour within this account is not of the ribald, "slapstick" variety, but rather a poignant exercise in situational irony and biting military satire. Set against the grim backdrop of the Great War, the narrative derives its wit from the stark collision between antiquated notions of chivalry and the impersonal brutality of trench warfare. This "misplaced" decorum is first glimpsed in the British officer’s quintessentially understated remark; his inability to "bear the sight" of the suffering man sounds less like a reaction to the horrors of the Somme and more like the mild irritation of an Edwardian gentleman discomfited by an untidy tea service. It is this profound incongruity between refined etiquette and the carnage of No Man’s Land that fuels the story's dark humour.

The absurdity reaches its zenith with the German commander’s decision to bestow the Iron Cross upon his adversary. There is a delicious irony in the fact that Germany’s highest mark of valour is pinned to the breast of a Briton who has, technically speaking, committed a minor act of "treason" by returning an enemy soldier to fight another day. The scene is further heightened by the "awkward" spontaneity of the ceasefire; for a brief, surreal moment, both sides cease their industrial-scale slaughter to observe the spectacle with the hushed reverence of theatregoers, only to presumably resume the carnage once the medals have been polished and pinned. Ultimately, the tale serves as a sharp satire on the rigidity of military honour, mocking a world so steeped in violence that a simple act of humanity appears utterly preposterous and topsy-turvy.

Such a tale, while steeped in the peculiar chivalry of a bygone era, serves as a poignant reminder of the sheer absurdity inherent in global conflict. However, as we turn our gaze from the muddy trenches of the Somme to the volatile landscapes of the modern Levant, the "humour" vanishes entirely. With the escalating friction between the United States-Israel alliance and Iran, the world finds itself standing upon a far more precarious precipice. One must wonder whether the quaint, individual acts of mercy seen in the Great War have any place in a potential Third World War, or if the shadow of a nuclear-armed confrontation has rendered such humanity a relic of the past. 

As of March 2026, the conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran has reached a critical and historically unprecedented juncture. Following the joint US–Israeli strikes on 28 February 2026, which resulted in the death of Supreme Leader and some senior Iranian officials, the region has entered a phase of acute instability with genuine potential for global escalation.

GEOPOLITICAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Will the US–Israel–Iran Conflict Trigger World War III?

I. Current Operational Status 

On 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel launched coordinated airstrikes against the Islamic Republic of Iran in an operation designated Operation Epic Fury. The strikes resulted in the killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei alongside some senior military and political officials, and followed a prolonged period of escalation that included the 12-Day War of June 2025, during which US forces struck Iranian underground nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The scale of the current operation has been considerable: more than 1,300 people have been killed inside Iran, the Islamic Republic's Naval and Air Force capabilities have reportedly been severely degraded, and the strategic port of Bandar Abbas was among the targets struck, raising the prospect of disruption to the International North–South Transport Corridor — a critical trade route for both Russia and China.

Iran's retaliatory response has encompassed ballistic missiles, hypersonic weapons, and drone attacks against Israel and US military installations across the region, with targets identified in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and Iraq. Non-state actors aligned with Tehran, including Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq, have threatened further strikes against American bases in the theatre, whilst Yemen's Ansarallah movement has declared the conflict to be a matter of collective concern that extends beyond Iran's borders alone.

II. Geopolitical Alignment

The conflict has produced a sharp polarisation of the international order. The United States and Israel are pursuing offensive operations aimed at regime change, engaging in direct military action. Russia and China, strongly critical of the strikes, have extended diplomatic and technical support to Iran, whilst refraining from direct military involvement. The Gulf states find themselves caught between the two blocs, having been subjected to Iranian proxy attacks and placed in the unwilling position of defensive participants. Western Europe — principally the United Kingdom, Germany, and France — has expressed support for denuclearisation whilst actively opposing further escalation, limiting its engagement to the diplomatic sphere. Turkey has adopted a posture of studied neutrality, pursuing mediation in parallel. Iraq and Yemen, through non-state proxy actors, have been drawn into the conflict on the Iranian side.

III. Factors Driving Escalation Towards World War III

Several dynamics present cause for serious concern regarding the prospect of global conflagration. The conflict has cleaved the international community along lines that closely resemble the alliance structures of the Cold War era — and, more distantly, those of both World Wars. Canada, Australia, and Ukraine have aligned with the US–Israeli position, whilst Russia and China have thrown their weight behind Iran. This structural polarisation, were it to harden further, carries within it the architecture of great-power confrontation.

Iran's network of non-state partners — Kataib Hezbollah in Iraq, Ansarallah in Yemen, and affiliated groups across the Levant — has been activated and is broadening the theatre of conflict. These actors introduce unpredictable escalatory dynamics that are inherently difficult to contain through conventional diplomatic channels, and their proliferation makes the conflict increasingly resistant to neat geographical circumscription.

Russia and China have materially enhanced Iran's capacity to sustain and widen the conflict through significant military transfers. Russia has supplied advanced hardware including S-400 air defence systems, Su-35 jet fighters, and sophisticated radar infrastructure; China has provided technical, drone, and cyber-related assistance. Whilst these transfers fall short of direct intervention, they constitute a meaningful augmentation of Iranian capabilities that must be factored into any escalation assessment.

The economic dimensions of the conflict are also alarming. The targeting of Bandar Abbas and the threats to the INSTC corridor place significant pressure on global supply chains, whilst energy infrastructure throughout the Persian Gulf—upon which a substantial portion of global oil supply depends—faces a credible threat from Iranian proxy forces. The potential economic consequences for the world economy are severe and may themselves serve as an escalatory driver, compelling external actors to intervene in defence of vital commercial interests.

These concerns are not confined to analytical circles. Former NATO Deputy Supreme Allied Commander General Richard Shirreff has characterised the current moment as the most dangerous he has witnessed in his career in geopolitics, warning that future historians may identify the US–Israeli strikes on Iran as the catalyst for a global conflagration. Such assessments from senior military figures lend considerable weight to the gravity of the situation.

IV. Factors Inhibiting Global Escalation

Against the foregoing, a number of structural factors continue to operate as restraints upon escalation. Most significantly, despite their rhetorical condemnation and material support for Iran, neither Russia nor China has demonstrated any willingness to engage in direct military confrontation with the United States. Analysts in Moscow are understood to view the escalation risk as prohibitively high, and Russia appears to be prioritising the possibility of a US-mediated settlement in Ukraine over direct involvement in the Middle East theatre. This suggests that, for the time being at least, Moscow's calculus does not favour crossing the threshold into great-power war.

China's position is shaped principally by its overriding economic interests. Direct military involvement in a conflict against the United States would place at risk Beijing's trade relationships, its access to international capital markets, and the stability of the global economy upon which China's continued development depends. For this reason, Beijing has confined itself to indirect support rather than military engagement, and there is little in the available evidence to suggest that this calculus is likely to change absent a dramatic and unforeseen development.

Iran itself entered the 2026 conflict in a severely compromised position: crippled by years of economic sanctions, destabilised by significant domestic unrest, structurally damaged by the 12-Day War of 2025, and with its regional proxy network considerably weakened relative to its pre-2023 peak. Iran's capacity to sustain a prolonged conflict or to draw in external powers directly is correspondingly limited, which reduces the probability that the Islamic Republic's actions alone could serve as the trigger for a wider war.

Domestically within the United States, public sentiment constitutes a further constraining factor. Polling conducted in February 2026 reveals that only 21 per cent of American citizens support the strikes against Iran, whilst 49 per cent regard the operation as unnecessary and costly. This deep public scepticism meaningfully constrains the political latitude available to Washington for further escalation, and functions as a democratic brake on the conduct of extended military operations.

V. Risk Assessment

On the basis of the available evidence, the scenario assessed as carrying moderate-to-high probability is one of containment, in which the war remains a regional conflict provided that Russia and China continue to exercise military restraint. A wider regional escalation—encompassing further Iranian proxy strikes and Israeli retaliation across multiple theatres. A great power is assessed as carrying a high probability, as is a significant disruption to global economic infrastructure through the closure of Bandar Abbas and attacks on Gulf energy installations. A great-power confrontation crossing the threshold of World War III is assessed as carrying low-to-moderate probability, contingent upon Russian or Chinese direct military involvement. Full-scale World War III theatres—defined as a NATO–Russia/China direct military exchange—is assessed as currently carrying low probability, though the conditions for such an outcome are more visible than at any point in the post-Cold War period.

VI. Analytical Conclusions

The current conflict represents the most acute risk of great-power confrontation since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. The principal question separating a devastating but contained regional war from a Third World War is whether Russia and China will cross the threshold from indirect support to direct military engagement. On the basis of the evidence currently available, the structural incentives for both Moscow and Beijing continue to favour restraint: Russia's priority remains Ukraine; China's priority remains economic stability. Neither actor appears willing to sacrifice these core interests for Iran's sake.

Nevertheless, the situation remains extraordinarily volatile. A miscalculation—an accidental engagement between Russian or Chinese advisers and American forces, a catastrophic Iranian strike on Gulf energy infrastructure, or a political crisis in Washington or Beijing that alters the domestic calculus—could rapidly and irreversibly change the strategic equation. Several variables warrant particular attention in the weeks ahead: whether Russia or China provides direct military personnel or hardware in active combat roles; the fate of Gulf energy infrastructure and the Strait of Hormuz; Iranian domestic political stability following the death of Khamenei; the posture of NATO member states in response to the conflict; and the extent of US Congressional support for further military operations.

The world is not currently at war with itself in any classical sense. But the architecture of global confrontation is more clearly visible today than at any point in the post-Cold War era, and the conditions under which that architecture could rapidly become a reality are proximate in a manner not seen since the Cold War's most dangerous years.

VERDICT: A 'Structural World War' is underway. A classical World War III remains possible but not yet probable.

[Part 12]
[Part 10]

Bahasa