Over the past couple of days, since Israeli forces struck Tehran, more than a few people have approached me with the same question or declaration: “World War III is starting.”
It’s not hard to see why. When one country launches a direct, conventional military attack on another, especially in a volatile region, it jolts even the most passive observer. Historically, actions like these are ominous. They often precede a broader, bloodier chapter. But does what happened on Thursday, June 12, between two long-hostile nations signal a global conflagration?
Let’s take a breath. Yes, always be prepared for the worst—but no, this likely isn’t the start of World War III. Here’s why.
PC: William Lewis, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
First, let’s look at who got hit: Iran. According to politically neutral analysts, Iran’s military capabilities are weaker today than they were just a few years ago. Sure, they have missiles and drones—but they’re neither as sophisticated nor as effective as those used by Israel or, especially, the United States.
Take last year’s drone attack on Israel, for instance. As the drones approached Israeli airspace, they were intercepted and shot down—many with the help of Jordan—before reaching their targets. A later missile strike didn’t fare much better.
If Iran were to launch a full-scale conventional war against Israel, it would be like bringing a bat to a gunfight—where the other side is packing a Gatling gun. You can guess who has what.
Then there’s Iran’s internal landscape. The regime is less concerned with foreign military conquest than with its survival. Crippled by decades of sanctions and a deteriorating economy, the Iranian government’s domestic support is shaky at best.
As analysts suggest, Iran’s top priority is to stay in power. A full-scale war—especially one that provokes devastating retaliation from Israel—risks triggering public unrest or even revolution. This government simply cannot afford to gamble with what little legitimacy it has left.
Israel, meanwhile, is operating from a stronger base. Its government is stable and has widespread public support. But its military limitations are real. Yes, Israel can hit Iranian targets—but completely neutralizing Iran’s nuclear program would require firepower that only one country possesses: the United States.
Despite popular belief and a slick PR machine, Israel doesn’t crack the top 10 of Global Firepower’s military rankings. It sits at #15—ironically, just one notch above Iran.
In other words, countries that are not necessarily powerful enough to induce a world-war level conflict on their own.
So far, the Israeli strikes have been measured. Some analysts speculate that support and Close command facilities within Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, which may include administrative or computer centers, were struck, though no major outlet has confirmed this directly. If Israel wanted to flatten parts of Tehran, though, it could. But it didn’t.
Interestingly, multiple sources—including Reuters, The Wall Street Journal, and Axios—have reported that a deliberate misinformation campaign may have preceded Israel’s strikes. According to these reports, Israeli and U.S. officials conveyed a public image of ongoing diplomacy, while privately preparing the attack. The goal? To give Iran a false sense of security and preserve operational surprise.
Officials even cited details like Netanyahu’s public vacation and carefully crafted diplomatic headlines as part of a coordinated deception effort. While this tactic may have worked tactically, it does raise concerns about transparency and escalation risk.
PC: Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons by “Self”
One more point about Iran: its proxy network—in Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen—has taken a beating in recent years. As Reuters notes, Iran’s regional network—the so-called “Axis of Resistance — has significantly eroded,” with weakened proxies that include Syria after targeted Israeli and rebel-backed setbacks.
So, even if Iran wanted to escalate, its capacity to mobilize regional allies or rally the broader Muslim world is severely diminished.
Does any of this mean, therefore, we’re sliding into World War III? Not really.
What we’ve seen so far doesn’t suggest a wider conflict. It seems more like Israel drawing a line: if Iran truly has 90% enriched uranium, it will act, not just talk.
(They did it before, in 1981, except the country attacked at that time was Iraq, not Iran. And World War III didn’t happen, then…just food for the readers thought).
Even if Iran were to fire back at Tel Aviv, the impact would likely be limited, giving Israel further cover to press its operations in Gaza with greater force.
In short, we’re not there yet. A world war requires more than regional tit-for-tat. It needs global players, broad alliances, and cascading conflict zones. So far, none of that’s materialized.
Let’s hope it stays that way.
Politics Hawaii with Stan Fichtman is a recipient of a 2023 Hawaii Society of Professional Journalist award. This year, the publication is once again nominated for recognition. Awards will be announced on July 30, 2025.