World War III, is it possible?
After the incident of the assassination of Major Iranian General Qasem Soleimani by the United States (US), the general public was enlivened by hashtags about World War III. Could the next world war erupt? On January 3, 2020, the world was shocked by the incident of the United States (US) air strike that occurred at Baghdad International Airport, Iraq, which killed Qasem Soleimani, Major General of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — part of the Iranian Armed Forces.
This attack was allegedly a US follow-up on the Quds Force which was considered a terrorist organization because of its affiliation with non-state organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Shortly after the attack which was part of the Persian Gulf Crisis, hashtag #worldwarthree appeared on various social media — raising questions and speculation about the possibility of an escalation of this incident into World War (PD) III.
With the various hashtags that have become a trend in various social media, it becomes interesting to discuss whether this incident could actually lead to World War III, and the extent to which the probability of World War III could occur, based on the conflict between the US and Iran that was raging. In connection with discussing these questions, the authors use the approach of historical comparison, and the concept of globalization to see the situation and context of the political situation and the constellation of the international world during World War I, II, and in 2019– 2020.
This comparison will be used as a basis to see whether the January 3, 2020 incident is strong enough to trigger a world war, as happened in the two previous wars. Meanwhile, the concept of globalization is used as the basis of the writer’s main argument — that globalization has created an interdependent political, economic and cultural situation, and that war will only result in losses greater than casualties. Context of the International Order The death of Soleimani probably raised us all with a similar incident on June 28, 1914 when Archduke Franz Ferdinand was killed by Gavrilo Princip, a Serb nationalist. In other words, the incident at Baghdad Airport was feared that many people would escalate quickly, like the quote ―history repeats itself‖. Noteworthy, the context of the international order in 1914 certainly cannot be compared to 2019. In 1914 it could be said to be a transitional era between the concept of empire and the modern nation-state. Realist nuances still dominate relations between countries, territorial conflicts in various regions in Europe, imperialism and colonialism, as well as inter-state ties that are still limited to alliances with the foundation of the agreement ―attack on one nation is attack on the alliance‖.
The absence of international organizations that accommodate the interests of countries such as the United Nations (UN) contributed to the situation. Countries are still moving based on their respective interests and there is no forum that can mediate the achievement of their interests in a peaceful manner. Coupled with minor conflicts throughout Europe that occurred before World War I. Starting from the Austro-Prussian War to the Bosnian Crisis are small sparks that have burned in Europe.
The killing of Franz Ferdinand, in other words, only ignited the fires of the conflict to a greater extent. The context of international politics in World War II also cannot be equated with what is happening right now. World War I and II were actually two inseparable wars, because the end of World War I led the world to an international situation which became the foundation for the outbreak of World War II 20 years later, as predicted by E.H. Carr in his book Twenty Years Crisis.
This situation is certainly different from what was in 2019. Not only the UN, various other international organizations exist as a bridge to reach an agreement without the need to use war and conflict as a way to achieve it. The existence of international law and norms, as well as international legal institutions such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ensured almost all countries in the world to achieve their interests in a peaceful manner.
Nuclear as the New Threshold In addition to the absence of international organizations, laws and norms which are considered as one of the causes of World War I and II, the international world has also gone through a moment of greater crisis: nuclear weapons. The Cold War has changed the definition of how to fight and how to start wars.
The present great war is no longer sufficient to be identified with a military invasion but it has involved nuclear weapons. Nuclear has become the threshold for a massive scale war. However, by its devastating nature, nuclear weapons are only used within the framework of a retaliation or second strike strategy. In other words, if World War I and II started when one country invaded another country, and caused a domino effect due to the state military alliance that attacked and was attacked, then the authors believe that, for World War III it could happen, there was enough one country that was ―brave‖ to launch its nuclear warhead missiles to other countries.
The author is quite sure that the conflict between the US and Iran is still far from reaching the threshold of a massive scale war like World War III because both the US and Iran are still ―healthy‖ enough to realize the impact of nuclear weapons when used in the framework of a first strike tactic. Globalization and the absence of World War As the author has explained from the discussion about the different contexts of the international order, the authors conclude that what is possible for the international order to shift and minimize the occurrence of war is globalization.
Globalization, as a phenomenon, ties state interests into an interdependent bond that requires them to collaborate to ensure their interests are achieved. This order did not exist during World War I and II. This openness between countries is one of the main products of globalization at the international level. Economic, cultural, political openness, from the level of head of state to citizens, creates positive understanding and bonds. This situation more or less agrees with Norman Angell’s argument that globalization has created interstate ties, whether economic, political, security, social, or cultural, causing openness and understanding so that war is no longer a reasonable option for the country.
This order is currently happening at the international level. Various forms of multilateral and bilateral cooperation between countries, as well as public diplomacy targeting at the micro level in the state order, namely individuals, have created bonds of openness and understanding that cause the possibility of massive scale wars to occur. Instead of declaring an open war, several heads of state positioned British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and European Union Council President Charles Michel preferring a path of mediation by speaking with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s head.
In fact, Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations Majid Takht Ravanchi also said that: Iran is not interested in war, Iran is not interested in escalation of tension in the region. Increasing the tensions in the region will not be in the interest of anybody, so Iran definitely would like to have peace established in the neighbourhood and the first ingredient for peace in the region is the removal of the forces, the American forces, from our region.
This shows how war is no longer a priority even in situations of conflict experienced by the US and Iran because both countries are aware that a massive scale war will not bring a negative impact that is far greater than the outcome of the war itself. Seeing from the background of the incident in Baghdad, as well as how to increase the tension between the US and Iran, the authors believe that the world is still far from a situation that allows for World War III.
The existence of international law and norms, the UN as a supranational institution, and a globalized world order causes a situation of great attachment and interdependence for countries so that a war on a massive scale will only create losses greater than casualties. In addition, the US and Iran conflicts are still far from the World War III scenario because this conflict — besides involving only two to three countries — does not exceed the threshold that could trigger a war on a massive scale, namely the use of nuclear weapons in the framework of a first strike strategy.
