Is It Possible to Stop Impending World War III? Yes. And No.

“Iron Dome” in operation. Image by Israel Defense Forces from Israel, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Humanity has problems in the Middle East again. Now Iran has really joined the impending World War III after short exchanging of blows with Israel in April.

In response to Israel's military operation against Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran launched from 180 to 400 ballistic missiles at Israel on the night of October, 2. Iran and Israel have no common border and the missiles again flew over the heads of Iraqis, Syrians, Jordanians...

Iran had previously promised but delayed its revenge for the murder of Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas political leader, who was blown up in the guesthouse in Tehran in the end of July. Then the Israelis killed Hassan Nasrallah, a Hezbollah’s military leader, by the airstrike in Lebanon in the end of September.
Now Iran has fulfilled its promise and taken revenge for everything at once.

Israel very succinctly reported small losses, and Iran reported that it destroyed some Israeli tanks and aircraft. It is quite difficult to determine what exactly the Iranians destroyed and what the Israelis defended themselves against, but some experts write that some of the Iranian missiles did find their targets, and in this case it turns out that the «Iron Dome» system either did not work or could not cope with such a barrage.

Israel promised "consequences" for Iran and will definitely fulfill its promise. And again missiles (or planes) will fly over the heads of innocent Iraqis, Syrians, Jordanians, but in the opposite direction...

No one in the world and all together can stop the Israelis from taking this step. They say they are right. Iran is also sure of its rightness.
It is interesting to note that now everyone is only defending themselves and no one is attacking. And everyone blames others for their aggressive actions. All the aggressors allegedly had no other choice.

When and where Israel's "retribution" might occur.

«When» is unknown, but we will probably find out soon. Unfortunately.

«Where» - this is, basically, clear.
Israel promised to respond in such a way that «the result ... will be seen by the entire Middle East.»

Iran has two suitable targets for such a response. They both are vital to the country's economy and within reach of Israeli air strikes:
- A big offshore crude oil terminal and the principal sea terminal for Iranian oil on Kharg Island. More than 90% of crude oil exports pass through it which has brought (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Industry_and_services) $36 billion to the Iranian treasury in 2023 (Iran's total exports amounted to $91.9 billion in 2023);

- the major deep-water Shahid Rajaee port which accounts for about 85% of Iran's total exports and imports.

The failure of any of these facilities would have a catastrophic impact on the Iranian economy. I think the Israelis know this, too.

The UN is unable to perform the role of judge in international conflicts due to internal disagreements and also because of the lack of a tool for carrying out its resolutions - a "global policeman".

The world does not know again what to do or how to calm the raging passions in the Middle East. It is interesting that every country is against the war, but together all are for it.

The only global political authority - the UN - which should fairly judge who is right or wrong, is paralyzed by internal disagreements and cannot issue a coordinated resolution. And when it can (for example, the UN General Assembly recently demanded that Israel withdraw its troops from Palestine within a year) - these decisions are simply not carried out.

And another important point: the UN does not have its "global police" and therefore there is no one to implement the UN resolutions. No one can force Israel, Russia, China, the US (and already North Korea) to do/not do anything. They are armed with nuclear weapons, have their own lobby in the UN Security Council and will defend their point of view.
The UN peacekeeping forces are also national in nature and therefore cannot be used everywhere in the world, and the US refuses the role of "global policeman". Also, peacekeepers need a UN Security Council resolution to be sent somewhere, i.e. an agreed decision, which often doesn’t happen.

Whether international sanctions work or not, they certainly force rogue states to unite.

Iran has been living under sanctions for many years. It got used to them and learned to survive on its own.

Putin's Russia has been under «tough» and increasing sanctions for 2.5 years now and is still alive. There is a lot of different information on the effectiveness of sanctions, but it is still unclear - either they are weak, or they are poorly (or not) implemented by different countries, or the Russians have found an effective way to bypass them … Most likely, all of these things together. But in any case, sanctioning takes a long time, it is often late, uncoordinated, inconsistent, and the only thing it performs well is uniting the rogue states.

As a result, several blocs or “centers of power” have now clearly emerged in the world:
- Democratic bloc: the US and its NATO allies, Australia, Japan, South Korea.
- Authoritarian bloc: China, Russia, Iran, Turkey (the only NATO member here), North Korea. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain are a separate group of countries here.
- "Global South": India, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil.
All other countries are more or less objects of the influence of the "centers of power" and gravitate towards one of them. The world is divided into groups. The centers of power each pursue their own policy and tear apart the global civilization created by humanity over the past 75 years. Chaos arises in the world, everyone is right and there is no global institution that is able to restore relative order.
Human civilization has clearly passed the peak of its development and is now degrading.

In connection with the sanctions imposed on Iran, another problem of democratic countries becomes noticeable: the regular re-election of their governments leads to the inconsistent policy. For example, the Obama’s Democratic administration in 2015 led Iran to stop its nuclear weapons in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. It proposed some guarantees, Iran agreed to that, and then the Republican Trump became president and cancelled all that in 2018.
Such behavior of a large country causes bewilderment and reluctance to participate. Therefore, Iran continued its nuclear program with the help of Russia which is a stable and predictable dictatorship.

Natural disintegration and fragmentation.

Life will put all the “centers of power” in their places over time and everyone will see they are much weaker than they seem - Russia, US and EU, and even China (which I consider the most resilient among all).

There really will be no winners in World War III.
All countries understand this, but some of them continue to drag humanity in this direction, challenging the established order and risking everyone's safety. The only way to stop the presumptuous "warmongers" is by force. Peacekeeping countries (democratic bloc) cannot go against their peace-loving principles, enter a war with the aggressors and thereby become "aggressors" themselves, spoiling relations with their voters. Well, and, of course, no one wants to risk a war, especially a nuclear one.
All that remains is to desperately call for peace and express the "extreme concerns" which the aggressors pay not much attention to.

Is it possible to stop impending World War III? Yes. And no.

There are several ways to stop a conflict between 2 people (as well as 2 countries).
This is how you can do that:
- to call the police (in the case of countries this won’t work because a “global police” doesn’t exist);
- to make a video of the conflict and provide it to the investigation (in the case of countries, this does not work also - there is plenty of video evidences, but international institutions are impotent);
- to stand between the conflicting parties and risk taking a few blows (in the case of countries, this could be UN peacekeepers, but this would require a UN resolution, which is almost unfeasible due to disagreements between members of the UN Security Council);
- to stop the conflict on your own by attacking both parties of the conflict. In the case of countries, this means introducing your troops into the conflict zone, i.e. practically starting military actions and thereby, rather, aggravating the situation, becoming an "aggressor" and creating problems for yourself;
- not to support any of the parties and wait until they stop/cannot fight any more. It would be good to equalize the parties' weapons before the active phase of the conflict, but in the case of countries this is impossible - no country will voluntarily give up its weapons and everyone will use what they have. Therefore, the arms race has always existed in our civilization.

In a similar way, it is possible to try to stop a world war:
1. It is necessary to adopt a law similar to the American «castle doctrine» (it permits to use deadly force to defend yourself against an intruder in the home) in UN and call military actions on foreign territory an "offensive" or "unjust" war. Next, it is necessary to declare every country waging such a war (or “special military operation”) a terrorist, a violator of world order, and oblige all countries to apply military and economic sanctions against it.
However, the US, Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, etc. - all countries that participate/may participate in various conflicts will definitely be against it. This is a good example of "every country is against the war, but together all are for it." Just in case.

2. It is necessary for all countries to simply not support any of the conflicting parties, and then it will be a local conflict or war, but no longer a "world war". Thus, theoretically, humanity could completely escape the sword of Damocles of a "world war". However...
Firstly, strong and rich countries will still start (see below why) wars of conquest “in the name of human progress” and defeat weaker and poorer countries.
And secondly, someone (Russia, for example) will definitely immediately rush to support “their allies” and everything will end in a confrontation between the same unions (or “centers of power”) that we already are having now without all the additional hassle.
And the UN will again not accept such a resolution, because countries (“aggressors” and “peacekeepers”) that have current smoldering conflicts with other countries will be against.
2.1 After the end of the local conflict, it would be good to hear the leaders of both sides at the International Criminal Court in Hague in order to objectively figure out who is right or wrong, so that others would learn a lesson. However, "winners are not judged", there is no "global policeman" and countries may begin to withdraw their signatures under the Rome Statute.

3. The most effective way to stop (or rather, prevent) any war is the people’s refusal to fight.

There will be no wars if the educated people refuse to fight.

Wars are started by politicians, but they are fought by ignorant citizens who listen to their politicians and share their delusions (in other words, lies). Politicians cannot fight without the people, so there will be no wars if conscious and educated citizens (the military including) advocate peace and do not fight.

Politicians are not afraid to start a war because they 1) expect to win it and 2) do not intend to participate personally and die. Theoretically, if Mr. Putin and his administration could be sent to the front lines now (and Mr. Zelensky and his administration, too), then the war between Russia and Ukraine would be over in a couple of days. Why?
Because the dead do not need money, and it is money (which gives power) and also the thirst for glory that attract many politicians to try their luck on the warpath.

War is the continuation of politics by other means, and politics is the concentrated expression of the economics. Wars on foreign territory (offensive or unjust ones) are waged for the acquisition of part of these territories along with their natural resources and the locals, who can work and pay taxes, i.e., ultimately - for material goods.
Thus, an offensive war is simply robbery on an international level, usually justified by some false idea. Hitler spoke about necessary living space for Germans and that the Germans were “the chosen race.” Putin says that “neo-Nazis have seized power in Ukraine and are infringing on Russians”…

Citizens of an aggressive state really die not for their country, as their elites tell them, but for "filthy lucre" for these same elites. This is how it works now and has always been like this. Human nature has not changed during several thousand years of our civilization.

And one more important aspect: political leaders often have immunity while performing their official duties. Everyone of them wants to make history, and the larger and richer a country is, the more international claims and ambitions its politicians have. And they are usually not responsible for anything (things like the Nuremberg Trials or the trial of S. Milošević are very rare) they did, so why not to try to become “great”?
All the national heroes in the history of mankind are conquerors. Monuments are erected to them, their profiles are placed on money, songs are sung about them... All politicians want towns and streets to be named after them, and this is much easier to achieve through destruction (war) than through creation (peace).

So what should people do to prevent wars?

If you feel that the war is unjust, do not participate. That’s it.
Yes, you may be punished for that, but in this case you will suffer for your convictions and not for someone else's lies.
However, the refusal (as well as the consent) to participate in a war has to be based on the knowledge and then it is conscious and responsible civic position in full compliance with the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.

At minimum, the one needs to understand «castle doctrine» and distinguish between participating in military actions on one’s own territory (defensive or “just wars”) and on foreign territory (offensive or “unjust wars”). As obvious as it may be, people are confused about these things because of the state propaganda. For example, most Russians are convinced, that they are rightfully (!) fighting the West and NATO (!) on the territory of Ukraine (!).

The same applies to Israel's war against Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.
You need to know much more deeply the history of Arab-Israeli relations (here one author outlined it very briefly and gave a list of must-read books on the topic) to see the roots of the current conflict and form your own objective opinion about this war. This is self-education, which will allow you to see the truth, not to succumb to manipulations and consciously not to participate in an unjust war.

So, educate yourself, collect and verify information, keeping in mind that politicians can lie enormously. Talk to other people, have your own opinion about the subject and act (and vote) accordingly. But...
You probably don’t have time for all that.

Unfortunately, people have no desire and time to be educated, that's why they always see a small part of the truth and fall for the lies of politicians. Thus, people act, being based on the false beliefs, vote to their own detriment, and do not see how their countries are deteriorating. However, one day everyone will have to pay for their ignorance. About 1 million Russians and Ukrainians have already died in Ukraine because of Putin's lies and his desire to become «great». And it’s not over yet.

The damned human nature.

So there are ways to stop the impending World War III, but they do not work for humans. We are absolutely helpless because of our nature. War is almost a natural state of the descendants of the Homo genus during millions of years.

Really, other animals are much more humane than humans.
Yes, they are “silly”, do not speak, they eat each other, but they don't lie, store food in refrigerators, don’t kill for no reason and wage wars. Humans are “clever” and do not eat other humans now, but our advanced consciousness allow us to kill animals for food and each other for “"filthy lucre"” in huge numbers with modern weapons and other achievements of science and technology.
One of my acquaintances very correctly called the human race "killer monkeys."