Today the situation is profoundly different
Today the situation is profoundly different. The modern world exists in a nuclear age in which any major war between states can easily escalate beyond a regional confrontation and produce destruction on an unprecedented scale. It is precisely for this reason that the prospect of a direct military clash between the United States, Israel and Iran alarms even many analysts who have traditionally supported a hard line towards Tehran.
Iran is not a minor state but a major regional power with a substantial industrial base, a significant military and scientific capacity, and a network of international partners. Any large-scale military operation against it would almost certainly trigger a chain reaction. Countries across the Middle East, the wider Muslim world and major global actors — including China, Russia, Pakistan, the European Union and India, several of which possess nuclear arsenals — could be drawn into the crisis.
Carlson, like a number of the experts he has interviewed, warns that such a scenario could have catastrophic consequences. In his view, the issue at stake is not merely another Middle Eastern war but a global upheaval that could fundamentally reshape international relations. Such warnings may sound alarmist. Yet the history of the twentieth century offers a sobering lesson: catastrophic wars are often preceded by long periods in which dangerous ideologies are tolerated or dismissed as fringe thinking.
Equally troubling is the ideological framing increasingly applied to the confrontation. Attempts by policymakers in Tel Aviv and their allies in Washington to cast the conflict in religious terms — as a struggle between civilisations or as a clash between Islam and Christianity — risk unleashing forces that would be extremely difficult to control. A regional military crisis could rapidly mutate into a wider ideological and religious conflict, fuelled by fanaticism and mutual hostility.
Politics grounded in such ideas effectively drags the world back towards its darkest historical chapters. When political decisions begin to be justified through apocalyptic expectations or religious prophecy, diplomacy and international law are quickly reduced to irrelevance. What remains is no longer politics in the conventional sense, but a volatile mixture of ideology and mysticism that recognises few rational limits.
It is therefore unsurprising that warnings against such a course are becoming more frequent. Humanity has already endured two world wars and decades of Cold War confrontation. Each time, the lesson has been painfully clear: political leaders convinced of their own historic mission and the exceptional destiny of their nations can unleash forces far beyond their control.
If religious radicalism — whether expressed through extremist interpretations of Judaism or through forms of Protestant Christian Zionism — fully penetrates the sphere of international politics, humanity could find itself in a profoundly dangerous position. Ancient eschatological fantasies and fanatical expectations would begin to shape the decisions of nuclear-armed states and influence the military adventures they pursue.
In such circumstances, the world would not merely stand on the brink of another war. It would find itself at the threshold of a darker era, one in which political choices are driven less by rational interests than by myths of a supposedly “predestined history”. And then modern civilisation might suddenly discover that it has not stepped into the future at all, but back into a new and far more perilous Middle Ages — only this time armed with the technologies of the nuclear age.
#MiddleEast #Geopolitics #Iran #Israel #USForeignPolicy #GlobalSecurity #Carlson #AlAqsa
Source: Telegram "europeandusanews"