rnest Hemingway once said: “Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.”

The world is now closer to the possibility of a third World War than it has ever been. I regret the pessimistic tone, but this is the reality we face. Those who are waging and escalating conflicts, driven by a sense of overconfidence and arrogance, are acutely aware of the lurking uncertainties that accompany their actions. A single misstep or miscalculation could plunge the entire world into far greater chaos.

While it is not inevitable, the risk is undeniably greater than it has been in a long time. A senior US official recently remarked that the situation was “more serious than at any other time in the past.”

The potential for escalation into a broader regional or global war is real—especially if other powers such as China, Russia or NATO become directly involved.

To recall some history, World War I began on June 28, 1914, following the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. The event set off a complex chain reaction, fuelled by existing alliances and escalating tensions among European powers.

On September 1, 1939, Nazi Germany, under the fervent leadership of Adolf Hitler, invaded Poland, marking the beginning of the World War II. Hitler’s ambitious madness was fuelled by a combination of ideological, political and strategic motives.

Both these deadly wars were significantly influenced by militarism and imperialism, but even more so by heightened national pride and trust in military-technological edge. A complex web of alliances drew many countries into these conflicts.

Sound familiar?

Encouraged by the absence of substantial international opposition —resistance to mindless violence in Gaza has been limited to mere words—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ally, the United States, saw this as an opportune moment to expand the conflict and confront Iran. Neither he nor his strongest supporter seem inclined to heed any warnings. In doing so, they are pushing the entire world toward a perilous situation.

The US-supported Israel did not face significant resistance in the initial days of the onslaught, aside from subdued Iranian military responses. The strategy of targeting the top leaders in the Iranian military and nuclear hierarchy may have sent Iran’s defence mechanisms into momentary disarray. Tel Aviv may have been further reassured by the fact that no country thus far has indicated an intention to support Iran militarily.

Every war in the past has led to significant advancements in military technology and tactics—such as the use of tanks, aircraft and chemical weapons in World War I, and more advanced weaponry and strategies in World War II. However, the latest clash, currently unfolding before our eyes on television, represents an even more profound evolution in warfare. Israel, supported by the United States, holds a clear advantage both militarily and technologically.

While the war in Ukraine continues to drag on with Russia, the conflict in the fragile Middle East is escalating. There are no signs of it slowing down. This has put regional stability in jeopardy. Russian President Vladimir Putin has long refused to heed advice, including from Donald Trump. The same can be said for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It appears that neither will rest until they achieve their military, political and self-esteem objectives.

A prolonged conflict could escalate proxy wars, destabilising countries like Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, leading to further violence and refugee crises.

While President Putin has jeopardised Europe’s security in doing so, Netanyahu has placed the entire Asia, especially the Middle East, on a precarious edge. The memory of the 2003 US-launched Operation Iraqi Freedom, aimed at destroying Baghdad’s weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), remains vivid. The unspoken goal was also to oust the renegade Saddam Hussein.

In the end, it was revealed that Iraq possessed no WMDs. The resulting instability, coupled with the US presence for eight years, contributed to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Israel’s attack evokes memories of the Shock and Awe campaign in Iraq.

There is no opposition group in Iran capable of effectively replacing the current regime. History has shown that unknown alternatives can sometimes be worse. Iran could go the way of Iraq, with unintended consequences that affect the nearby region more than distant places.

A prolonged conflict could escalate proxy wars, destabilising countries like Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, leading to further violence and refugee crises.

Every country in the region, including Pakistan, faces its own unique challenges. For Islamabad, tensions with its arch-rival India may have eased for the time being, but economic recovery and the welfare of its people remain daunting tasks. Pakistan has already closed its border with Iran, severely impacting thousands of livelihoods dependent on cross-border trade.

Militant groups emerging in Iraq have visited Pakistan too. There are many eager jobless and mindless people roaming around looking to branch out into new territories.

Both Trump and Netanyahu have made some alarming statements. Trump has said that they will address other issues later; after dealing with Iran.

A destabilised neighbour to the west cannot bode well for Pakistan. Netanyahu’s plan appears to target not only Iranian nuclear infrastructure but also the current regime. We have already seen the suffering caused by political and security instability in Afghanistan. It remains unclear what fate awaits the Baloch insurgents allegedly operating from Iran. How will a potential regime change in Tehran impact these militants? A pro-West regime in Iran may not be favourable for Islamabad. How will the Baloch insurgents see the changes in Iran?

Israeli strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure, including the South Pars Gas Field, are already disrupting global energy markets, raising fears of high fuel prices and hence, a broader economic crisis. Iran is a key player in the global oil market. Conflict could disrupt oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical oil transit chokepoints, leading to spikes in prices.

There have been reports that hundreds of Iranians are already fleeing to neighbouring countries. A prolonged instability could lead to a new wave of refugees fleeing violence, exacerbating the humanitarian situation in neighbouring countries and beyond.

Achieving definitive results from such wars is always doubtful. Israel can “significantly” degrade Iran’s nuclear programme, but many know it’s not possible to completely eliminate it. Ehud Barak, a former Israeli prime minister and a retired general, in an interview with CNN has stated: “Even the US cannot delay them by more than a few months.”

The writer, a journalist for 33 years, has been an editor at the BBC in Pakistan for over two decades. Currently, he is the managing editor at Independent Urdu