“I know not with what weapons World War Three will be fought,” Albert Einstein famously said in a 1949 interview. “But World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones.” 

Einstein depicted a theoretical Third World War as an immensely destructive event which would set humanity back to the Stone Age, which was at the time not unreasonable. Given the way in which the Second World War had ended, it seemed only natural that the next one would involve nuclear warfare and destruction on an apocalyptical level. Instead, much of the world was spared mutually assured destruction. Rather than attacking one another directly, the United States and the Soviet Union spent the ensuing decades fighting one another through a series of destructive proxy wars spread across the globe. 

The Cold War, however, arguably was indeed a third world war. As they began to stockpile more and more nuclear weapons, the nuclear component of World War Three became not just the idea of what it would be, but the idea of what World War Three must be. Any conflict lacking nuclear warfare did not fit the criteria to become a third world war. Today, “World War Three” is a phrase thrown around on the internet at a whim, commonly used in unserious contexts, and is nearly always used in reference to nuclear warfare. At no point did any American or Soviet leader use the term “World War Three” to describe the Cold War. That was a term which represented doom, destruction, and nuclear winter. It was a phrase to be avoided, and yet it was undeniably a global conflict. Provided that one defines a world war simply as a global conflict between the most powerful nations, and does not require them to face off directly, the Cold War fits this definition quite well.

If the criteria for a “World War” is a global conflict, then the battle between Islamists and the West must surely also qualify. The fourth global conflict – the Fourth World War, that is – is not an event far off in the future but began with the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and is still ongoing today. Ever since the Iranian Revolution, there has been a dramatic rise in Islamist terrorism throughout the world, even outside of the Middle East. In an age of easy access to targets abroad, terrorist activity has gradually transformed from a local problem into a global issue. The first signs came from within the Middle East as terrorist organizations began to receive funding from the Iranian regime, such as Hezbollah who soon after the Iranian Revolution fought with Israel during the First Lebanon War. NATO forces entered the region to force Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait in 1990 and 1991, establishing a precedent of Western countries fighting wars against insurgents on foreign soil. Terrorists looking to harm Israel began to eye targets beyond Israel territory, with attacks including hijacking airplanes and carrying out the deadly 1994 AMIA Jewish Center bombing in Argentina. 

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'xEL5TCslQsdaiLxaSic1Rg',sig:'nn6iKq8fTOjSCrNKUlJfp2xvLh8IBLps-ql9R6Fw114=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'71267094',caption: false ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

During these years, the Fourth World War had not yet become a world war because it was geographically contained in the same manner which the First World War initially was. The signs of a global war stemming from Islamist extremism, however, were there. In 1993, American political scientist Samuel Huntington published a book titled Clash of Civilizations which theorized that the coming decades would involve wars between cultures with conflicting ethnic identities as opposed to wars stemming from conflicting political ideologies, as had been the case for much of the twentieth century. The two cultures which were fated to be the most aggressive against the West, he argued, were Islamic nations and China, and proposed that a Sino-Islamic alliance would be formed. 

After the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush declared on national television that American forces would soon hold Al-Qaeda and its supporters responsible for their actions. Though the ensuing campaigns became known as the “War on Terror”, its true name was “The Global War on Terrorism”, pointing to the relevance of the war on terror beyond the Middle East. A decade after the Soviet Union had collapsed, the formerly superfluous NATO alliance had found themselves facing a common enemy once again, and over the course of several years fought in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. 

Huntington’s predictions that the 21st century would revolve around conflicts with Western countries on one side and Islam on the other, aided by China and other anti-Western allies, seems to have come true. Russia’s war against Ukraine with the use of Chinese money and Iranian weapons are connected to the general war on terror, as is the Chinese aggression campaign targeting Taiwan. In my mind it is the locations of these two conflicts – both outside of the Middle East – which cement the conflict between these two parties as an intercontinental battle and thus as a World War. Even though Russia and China may not be Islamist theocracies, they see a valuable partner in Iran with whom they can undermine the Western world. This alliance is an undeniable fact; the three countries have cooperated on many issues especially concerning military capabilities or energy. On January 29th of this year, a comprehensive strategic pact was signed by Iran, China, and Russia creating strategic alignment on a large variety of issues ranging from nuclear programs to economic sanctions. Although most of Iran’s allies have yet to openly support the Iranian regime against the ongoing bombing campaign, Russia has reportedly leaked locations of American forces in the region to Iran. 

As much of a visionary as Huntington may seem today in predicting that an anti-Western Islamic bloc would form, he miscalculated where the Gulf States and Western Europe would end up. Until this week, the Arab League had largely been successful in presenting a facade of unity and stability within the Middle East, outside of condemning Israel at every opportunity of course. But all that has changed. 

Embed from Getty Imageswindow.gie=window.gie||function(c){(gie.q=gie.q||[]).push(c)};gie(function(){gie.widgets.load({id:'322p3rzORW5SCl6vq9IxDA',sig:'t9bb6ta5q0OXdA0iWts8_l5-Za31Xt_gEhRNK4EeqQc=',w:'594px',h:'396px',items:'2247337124',caption: false ,tld:'com',is360: false })});

That the war on terror is now reaching a climax as bombs continue to fall on Tehran is not nearly as surprising as the alliance that has now formed against Islamist extremism. Standing beside the United States and Israel in openly opposing Iran are Saudi Arabia, Oman, the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Jordan. Pakistan, of all places, has sharply condemned Iran’s attacks. Even Qatar, which I criticized in one of my previous posts as being a greater danger to Israel than Iran, has intercepted missiles, shot down two Iranian bombers, and even reportedly retaliated with air strikes on Iranian soil. Even though the Muslim Brotherhood-controlled nation may be a prominent threat to Israel in the future, it is simply impossible to emphasize how ridiculous this would seem to anyone forty or even four years ago. 

Although President Trump’s “America First” doctrine, which emphasizes freedom of action and a reduction in reliance on alliances, shifted the odds so that it became slightly more likely that the United States would be victorious in World War Four outright, NATO was still the most influential and imposing alliance in the world. But as American and Israeli fighter jets take out every prominent figure of the Iranian regime one by one, and as the Gulf States continue to exceed expectations (at least my expectations) with their highly impressive interception rates, it has become clear that this may be the most powerful military force ever assembled. While the Gulf States are not conducting large-scale operations with America and Israel, their successful defense of their civilian centers and American army bases and their sharp condemnations of Iran have proved them to be in some ways more valuable strategic partners than many historically influential European countries. The United States is fighting along valuable partners after all, and against Islamist extremism, but it is not fighting alongside a single other NATO member. 

Not only does the current composition of allies differ from previous American-led coalitions, but it appears as if this modification may be long-term. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth during a press conference referred to Israel as a “capable partner” and added that “capable partners are good partners, unlike so many of our traditional allies who wring their hands and clutch their pearls, hemming and hawing about the use of force.” It was no secret which allies he was referring to, as the statement came soon after the European Union released a statement calling for “maximum restraint”. Shocking as it may seem, Israel may have a larger number of reliable allies in the Middle East than in NATO. 

Western European countries are struggling to maintain stability within populations containing many illegal immigrants and terrorist supporters, an issue which explains why several days ago Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer was so swift in issuing a public statement that Britain was not involved in attacking Iran, and why countries like France and Germany have been reluctant to even assist in the war against Iran. Huntington wrote that in reaction to the rise of Islamist fundamentalism Christianity would experience a similar transformation, and as right-wing parties in Europe continue their rise in popularity this appears to have come true as well. It is well within the realm of possibility that Western Europe will be the next battlefield of World War Four, and that the Middle East, a region which only became infamous for violence after the Iranian Revolution, will be relatively peaceful. Provided a peaceful regime change takes place with Reza Pahlavi at the helm, Iran might not just be a key ally for the United States and Israel but could even become an anchor of stability. The Middle East, which has for years suffered from Iranian-funded terrorist proxies, may experience over the next decade a period of rapid economic growth particularly in currently impoverished countries such as Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen.

Today, most countries in the Middle East feel much less personally threatened by Israel than Iran, as is evident from their recent investments in the interception capabilities necessary to defend themselves against Iranian aggression. While many countries further abroad recoil at an image depicting a neighborhood destroyed, many in the Middle East are less likely to assume that an atrocity took place because they have seen how destructive a genocidal war would truly be, due to their proximity to conflicts such as the civil wars in Yemen and Syria. (Concerning extremists, whether Israel committed an atrocity or not is irrelevant to them, as Hamas for example has never refrained from terror due to Israeli restraint.) The country with the greatest potential to harm their civilians and thus tank their leaders’ popularity, is Iran. The Gulf States siding with America and Israel against the Iranian regime is in part a direct result of Israel’s relative restraint in Gaza bearing fruit, though mainly for the purpose of defending themselves against Iran’s missiles and drone swarms. With regime change in Syria and many other nations in the Middle East actively modernizing, it seems that multiple countries in the Middle East beyond the gulf will be willing to cooperate with Israel in the short term future. Israel in turn will have to look beyond its neighbors’ past for the sake of winning the greater war against the Iranian regime and all Islamist extremists.

Overshadowed by the ongoing situation in Iran was the welcome news that the Lebanese government has at last formally outlawed Hezbollah, a development which was only made possible by recent events, and this is a trend likely to continue. Hezbollah is now unable to secure more funds, Hamas will slowly go broke, and the Houthis coffers will eventually run dry. In 1992, according to the Middle East Forum, Iran vowed to give Hamas $30 million annually and provide military training, while the U.S. State Department issued a report that since 2018 Iran has provided Hamas with $100 million annually. If that number were to drop to zero, Hamas’s capabilities to harm Israel and its civilians will be greatly reduced. Though the Iranian regime is not the only source of Islamist extremism, it is its cultural center. It is the only Islamist movement to have controlled a large territory and held onto it in the long term, cementing Iran as a prototype model which terrorist organizations outside its borders envision to replicate. Provided that the Iranian regime is successfully toppled, we are living through the most significant accomplishment in the Global War on Terrorism, and even better it will have been brought on by cooperation on the defensive and diplomatic fronts by nearly every government in the Middle East. A decisive victory would not just topple the regime or potentially transform Iran into an ally, but would intimidate China from invading Taiwan, weaken the Russian position in Ukraine, increase peace to the Middle East and decisively turn the tide of World War Four in the favor of the free world.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)