World on Brink as Leaders Risk Nuclear Armageddon

Engulfing the world is a madness threatening our existence – if you happen to be enjoying a latte, it should be accompanied by contemplation of the threat we now face.

Last Thursday, April 25, in Australia, was ANZAC Day – Australia’s National Day of Remembrance, honouring the fallen and injured who died in wars Australia has been involved in.

Attending the Dawn Service in honour of the brave men and women who have died for Australia, I couldn’t help but reflect on the campaigns Australia should never have been engaged in.

World War II was the only theatre of war Australia had reason to legitimately fight in. World War 1 had no relevance to Australia except for being a loyal servant of the British Empire - Australians and New Zealanders cannon fodder for the Brits, while every other war from Korea to Afghanistan bore no relevance or threat to Australia’s security.

They were manufactured CIA wars to serve US hegemony. The lives of thousands of young Australian men and women were lost and ruined for a lie fomented by an ally to serve its own political, economic, and hegemonistic purposes.

No one has ever been able to articulate to any Australian or any other nation that fought alongside the US how they benefited from being involved in wars that only served the US economically.

The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 saw the world come close to nuclear Armageddon - Kennedy and Kruschev were rational men; they understood the perils of nuclear war. However, the same can’t be said of current global leaders.

The international landscape is fragile, and the airstrike on the Iranian embassy in Damascus by Israeli forces on April 1, this year, has not only significantly heightened tensions in the Middle East, it also underscores the volatility of interplay between regional conflicts and broader global stability.

What’s disturbing is how the fate of the world rests in the hands of a demented US President and a psychopathic Israeli Prime Minister. Israel’s bombing of Iran’s embassy in Damascus exemplifies the tinderbox nature of regional power dynamics and how local conflicts can escalate into a broader crisis - impacting global political and technological spheres.

What began as an ordinary day in Damascus on April 1, saw its stillness shattered by an Israeli airstrike hitting the Iranian embassy. It marked another intense episode by Israel against Iran as it has consistently done since the early naughties, through targeted assassinations of scientists, political officials, and dissidents in the belief Iran was undertaking a nuclear program.

Iran's response was to strike Israel with missiles that served as a "retaliatory message," - it could hit Israel anywhere, anytime, and pierce its notorious Iron Dome and readiness to escalate actions when necessary.

Israel no longer holds the advantage of deterrence dominance, that now sits with Iran, as the dominant force in the region. Israel’s strike on Iran’s Damascus embassy hasn’t only escalated regional tensions but cast a shadow over global diplomacy, risking a global conflict. Modern conflicts are increasingly defined by technological capabilities.

The use of drones, cyberattacks, and advanced surveillance technologies in wars like those in the Middle East represents a shift in how they are conducted - offering strategic advantages while posing significant ethical and security risks, including the potential for cyber warfare to disrupt civilian life far removed from physical battlefields.

The attack on the Iranian embassy and the subsequent retaliatory strikes underscores the role of technology in modern warfare.

Beyond the immediate physical and political consequences of the embassy attack, there’s a profound psychological impact on societies. The constant threat of escalation and the unpredictability of modern warfare contribute to a global atmosphere of tension and anxiety.

It’s a psychological state, often referred to as "apocalyptic insanity," reflecting the fear of a catastrophic conflict that could arise from seemingly isolated incidents. The state of collective anxiety isn’t just limited to the regions immediately involved in the conflicts.

Through global media, the impact of these tensions spreads worldwide, influencing public opinion and potentially affecting international policy decisions.

Effective diplomacy requires addressing the immediate triggers of wars, such as the embassy attack, but also the underlying issues that fuel them, including resource competition, territorial disputes, and historical grievances. The attack on the Iranian embassy in Damascus is a reminder of the intricate factors that define global stability today.

As nations and non-state actors navigate turbulent waters, the decisions made in the coming months will have lasting implications for regional and global peace.

In an era of heightened tension, the international community must find ways to mitigate conflicts and foster a stable, peaceful global order. Whatever path is chosen will undoubtedly resonate through history - highlighting the importance of wisdom, restraint, and cooperation in the face of mounting challenges.