Bold claim: If Iran resists, the global economy will pay a heavy price.
Western governments, along with Australia and New Zealand, quickly lined up behind US and Israeli actions against Iran. Yet this stance risks triggering economic catastrophe, regional escalation, and a deep erosion of international law.
These Western powers—and the Gulf states aligned with them—may come to regret their swift support if Iran endures the weekend’s onslaught and vows to retaliate in ways that could destabilize global markets.
Early indicators of Iran’s potential leverage include the possible closure of Gulf civilian airports and a near shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz. If airports in Doha, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and other hubs stop operating, some 500,000 international passengers per day could be stranded. Simultaneously, halting shipments through the Strait could disrupt roughly 21 million barrels of oil and gas exported daily, about 20 percent of global daily needs. Prolonged conflict brings unpredictable ripple effects, and as I noted in a recent piece, if Iran withstands the world’s most powerful military, those shockwaves will ripple into our economies.
For countries like Australia and New Zealand, a continued blockade of Hormuz could threaten access to oil, LNG, and agricultural petrochemicals. Iran even now possesses thousands of short-range missiles and numerous coastal mines, making suppression exceedingly difficult.
At the moment, some Western capitals celebrate what appears to be a decisive blow with the assassination of the Supreme Leader. But a decapitation strike could push Iran to retaliate in ways that are dangerous: for instance, targeting a U.S. aircraft carrier with hypersonic missiles or disrupting Qatar’s LNG processing trains essential to many economies.
There is a non-trivial risk that the U.S. and Israel might consider nuclear options if things deteriorate further.
“Khamenei, one of the most evil people in history, is dead,” proclaimed the U.S. president on Truth Social. In reality, Ayatollah Khamenei has long been a restraint on Iran’s nuclear ambitions, issuing a fatwa against acquiring nuclear weapons in 2003. Along with reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian, who sought to ease tensions with the U.S., Khamenei faced a volley of missiles this weekend. It’s a clash of two leaders promoting peace in theory while facing aggressive moves in practice.
The Western narrative has been inconsistent. After twenty years of rhetoric about Iran’s nuclear program, some Western figures flip-flop between tough talk and negotiation. Phrases like “one week from the bomb” have appeared repeatedly, even as long-standing regional tensions persist. The reality is often more complex than soundbites suggest, and recent events underscore that nuclear-related rhetoric has not produced clear, lasting changes in policy.
Many observers argue this crisis is not primarily about nuclear weapons or democracy. Grim evidence, such as the tragedy of Iranian schoolgirls killed in attacks, underscores a broader pattern of conflict that harms civilians far from the negotiating table.
Beyond Iran’s borders, the movement for women’s rights and political pluralism inside Iran could be set back by a conflict-driven crackdown, just as it faces broader challenges in the region. A prolonged war might empower aggressive regional actors rather than advance the cause of stable, inclusive governance.
Arab leaders have shown hesitation about the immediate benefits of dismantling Iran. Recently, some voiced concern after a U.S. envoy suggested Israel could pursue a broader “biblical” land expansion, a remark that drew sharp pushback and limited accountability from Western administrations.
There is reason to fear that victory for the U.S. and Israel could be a stepping stone to further abuses, rather than a path toward lasting peace. This moment resembles Thucydides’ ancient warning: the strong act with impunity, while the weak bear the consequences. Unilateral force should not override international law.
Spain’s prime minister condemned the strikes as an escalation that worsens global instability, signaling a willingness among some traditional Western partners to dissent from this path. The Spanish leadership criticized unilateral military action and called for a more stable, law-based international order.
Cuba joined the chorus of concern, denouncing the attacks as a flagrant violation of international law and the UN Charter. Cuba’s statement emphasized sovereign equality, non-interference, the prohibition of force against territorial integrity, and peaceful dispute resolution as essential principles.
The New York Times noted surprise at Australia’s stance, quoting Prime Minister Anthony Albanese as supporting U.S. efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its threats to international peace and security. New Zealand’s prime minister, Christopher Luxon, framed the actions as preventing such threats, a position critics viewed as dismissive of broader legal and humanitarian considerations.
Taken together, these responses reflect a Western posture that some observers see as overreaching and destructive. A more constructive approach would reaffirm international law, emphasize diplomacy, and seek durable, multilateral avenues to address security concerns without cascading economic or humanitarian harm.
What do you think: Should regional security concerns prompt decisive action, or should they always be balanced with strict adherence to international law and global economic stability? Is there a viable path to deterrence that avoids escalatory cycles and civilian harm? Share your thoughts in the comments.
