World War 3’s Decisive Battle

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

As I’ve discussed recently, I believe proxy wars will determine who wins WW3 and gets to shape the new world order.

There are numerous ongoing proxy wars in World War 3.

However, the ones I believe will prove decisive will be in Taiwan, Ukraine, and the Middle East. The others are peripheral in comparison.

I think it’s clear the proxy wars in Ukraine and Taiwan are likely to end in favor of BRICS+.

That’s why I expect NATO & Friends will make their last stand to scuttle the emergence of a multipolar world order and preserve the US-led world order in the Middle East.

The Middle East is on the precipice of its largest war in generations.

The region is roughly divided into two different geopolitical groups.

The first is the US and its allies—Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and others.

(Though Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are members of BRICS+, their true allegiance is with the agenda of NATO & Friends).

The second group describes itself as the Axis of Resistance. It consists of Iran, Syria, the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, several Palestinian groups (including Hamas), and an assortment of militias in Iraq. Russia and China are standing behind the Axis of Resistance.

If there is a regional war in the Middle East, it will undoubtedly be between these two groups.

In the context of World War 3, the US and its allies represent NATO & Friends, and the Axis of Resistance represents BRICS+.

Here is a geopolitical map of the Middle East as I see it (click to enlarge).

Iran is the main sponsor of the Axis of Resistance, and it does not have nuclear weapons.

Unlike in Europe (Russia) or East Asia (China), there is no sophisticated nuclear power to deter NATO & Friends from more aggressive military action in the Middle East. Iran is, therefore, the weak link in the BRICS+ alliance to push for a multipolar world order.

That’s why I expect NATO & Friends will make their last stand to scuttle the emergence of a multipolar world order in the Middle East by trying to neutralize the Axis of Resistance.

Here is a brief overview of where things stand now in various areas of the Middle East. It will help us zoom out and put together the pieces to see the big picture.

Gaza

While Israel has caused widespread destruction in Gaza, they are nowhere close to their goal of totally destroying Hamas.

Even the US government acknowledges that Israeli military action will be unable to totally destroy Hamas. The Israeli military has also come to reluctantly admit that Hamas cannot be defeated by military force alone.

That’s because Hamas is waging a classic guerrilla warfare campaign against the far superior Israeli military on the ground in Gaza.

Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare that relies on unconventional tactics such as hit-and-run attacks, sabotage, and ambushes to harass and exhaust a much stronger, better-equipped enemy force.

The main objective is not to achieve a decisive victory through conventional means but rather to undermine the enemy’s morale and force them to expend resources in a war of attrition.

The emphasis on survival and persistence allows guerrilla fighters to maintain their presence in the conflict, inspire more people to join their cause, and create a sense of frustration and demoralization among the enemy troops.

This strategy has been employed successfully by various groups throughout history—the Taliban, the Viet Cong, etc.—demonstrating the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare to challenge much more powerful adversaries.

Simply put, in a guerrilla war, to survive is to win.

That’s because merely surviving allows guerrillas to continue exhausting their enemies. By surviving, they undermine attempts to destroy their movement and demonstrate their resilience and determination to continue fighting.

Moreover, their enemy’s inability to completely eliminate the guerrilla fighters can lead to the perception that they are losing the war, as they cannot achieve a decisive victory despite their superior resources and technology.

Here’s the bottom line.

Israel has been trapped in a no-win situation with two unappealing choices:

1. Negotiate a ceasefire and an exchange of prisoners on unfavorable terms. The region will likely view it as a victory for the Axis of Resistance because Hamas will have forced the much stronger Israel to accept some of its terms.

2. Engage in a fruitless protracted guerrilla war that drains its military, economy, and diplomatic capital. Such a scenario will also risk sparking a much larger full-scale regional war against the Axis of Resistance—with Russia and China standing behind them—that Israel, the US, and its allies aren’t guaranteed to win.

No matter how the Gaza war ultimately ends, the events of October 7 and afterward have likely shattered the aura of invincibility of the Israeli military. In other words, Israel has lost its deterrence, and it will not easily or quickly regain it.

In short, Israel’s regional position is deteriorating. That weakens the geopolitical position of NATO & Friends in the Middle East.

Syria

Since 2011, NATO & Friends have tried to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Al Assad and replace him with someone more pliable. However, that effort failed thanks to the intervention of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah.

Syria will remain a crucial member of the Axis of Resistance and sympathetic to BRICS+.

Iraq

After the US overthrew Saddam Hussein in 2003, they hoped to mold Iraq in the shape of Jordan, one of its most reliable allies in the Middle East.

Though, it didn’t work out the way they had hoped.

Instead, the removal of Sunni Saddam empowered Iraq’s Shia majority, which is much more sympathetic to Iran than the US agenda for the region.

Numerous powerful Iraqi militia groups are members of the Axis of Resistance. The Iraqi central government cannot challenge them and is more or less on the same geopolitical page anyway.

However, there are still a couple of thousand US soldiers in Iraq, which the Iraqi central government recently asked Washington to withdraw. Negotiations are ongoing.

Regardless of whether the relatively small number of US troops stays or leaves, Iraq’s geopolitical orientation has tilted towards the Axis of Resistance and BRICS+.

Yemen

Yemen has sometimes been called “the Afghanistan of the Middle East” because it is an impoverished tribal society that is well-armed, situated on mountainous terrain, and generally inhospitable to foreign invaders.

The Houthis, an Iran-backed group that controls most of Yemen, frustrated a military coalition of Saudi Arabia and its allies. Despite waging war since 2015, the Saudis have not been able to defeat the Houthis.

However, most people are unaware of this war or its details. It’s remarkable that the Saudis, who are among the wealthiest in the Middle East and backed by the military and political support of the US, could not defeat the Middle East’s most impoverished people in Yemen.

The Houthis—and thus the Axis of Resistance—remain firmly in control of most of Yemen.

Amid the ongoing conflict in Gaza, the Houthis have demonstrated an ability to disrupt global shipping in the Red Sea—some of the most important sea lanes in the world. They have targeted ships associated with the US and Israel with missiles and drones and have also hit Israeli cities.

However, there is little appetite for anyone to take on the Houthis. The Saudis’ poor performance against them is still fresh in everyone’s minds.

Here’s the bottom line with Yemen.

The Houthis will likely remain in power and sympathetic to the BRICS+ agenda for a multipolar world order.

Iran

Unlike most other nation states in the Middle East, Iran (known as Persia before 1935) is not an artificial construct. By race, religion, and social history, it is a nation. European bureaucrats didn’t dream up Iran by drawing zigzags on a map. The map reflects the geographic reality of a country with natural, fortress-like mountain borders. In the east, the Roman Empire generally ended where the Persian Empire began.

Iran leads the Axis of Resistance in the Middle East and is the main power pushing for the BRICS+ goal of a multipolar order in the region.

The US and its allies have not been successful in limiting Iran’s power. They’ve tried pretty much everything short of a full-scale invasion.

Instead, the opposite happened: Iran’s influence grew.

Iran’s economy has strengthened thanks to expanding relations with China, and its military has strengthened thanks to expanding ties with Russia and a well-developed domestic military-industrial complex.

In short, NATO & Friends have few cards to play against Iran.

If the US really wants to decapitate the BRICS+ agenda in the Middle East, it would need to overthrow the Iranian government. That would require waging a full-scale regional war against all members of the Axis of Resistance and launching a ground invasion of Iran.

Remember, during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988)—back when Saddam was a “good guy”—he threw over 500,000 Iraqi soldiers at the Iranian meat grinder, had the backing of the US AND the Soviet Union, and used chemical weapons on a scale not seen since WW1… and he barely made a dent in Iran.

The reality is that if the US is serious about invading Iran, it would likely require total mobilization and bringing back the draft. That is not likely to happen, but even if it did, it would not guarantee US victory.

If Iran thought the US was going to invade, it could also develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent within a matter of weeks or less. It might also already have a couple of secretly obtained nukes.

Given those unfavorable prospects, NATO & Friends could decide to use nuclear weapons on Iran preemptively.

Iran is well aware that the US or Israel could use nuclear weapons against it. It has contingency plans for that outcome to ensure the survival of its government. Iran’s plans also likely include making a dash for developing its own nuclear arsenal to be able to respond in kind.

Further, it’s doubtful that Russia and China would just sit back and do nothing if NATO & Friends looked like they might nuke Iran. For example, Russia could decide to station nuclear weapons and Russian soldiers on Iranian soil as a deterrent.

In short, NATO & Friends using nukes on Iran could lead to an unpredictable series of events that could quickly spiral out of control, so I don’t view it as a likely outcome.

Here’s the bottom line.

NATO & Friends don’t have any attractive options when it comes to dealing with Iran.

Conclusion

NATO & Friends are not in a weak position in the Middle East. They have nuclear weapons, advanced militaries, and some of the largest regional armies—notably Egypt, Israel, and Turkey—at their disposal.

That being said, when you take a step back and put it all together, it is clear that the geopolitical momentum is with the Axis of Resistance, which is eroding the power and influence of NATO & Friends in the Middle East.

The situation is trending in favor of the Axis of Resistance and BRICS+. If those trends continue—and I think they will—sooner or later, NATO & Friends must make a fateful decision.

They can either cede the region to BRICS+, which would seal the creation of a multipolar world order, or launch a full-scale war with the Axis of Resistance as a last-ditch Hail Mary attempt to scuttle the emergence of a multipolar world order.

There is no guarantee that NATO & Friends would win such a war. I think it’s likely it would end in disaster for them. That’s probably a big reason it hasn’t happened yet, despite no shortage of hostile intentions.

However, if NATO & Friends feel the sun is about to set on the US-led unipolar world order, they may go for it anyway. That would require them to take a bad hand and double down in a desperate attempt to get even. They may do so if they have nothing to lose, but I doubt it will change the ultimate outcome.

The situation is fluid and volatile. It’s impossible to quantify the conflict precisely.

That being said, when you put everything together, I think there is a good chance that BRICS+ will prevail in the three key proxy wars of WW3—Ukraine, Taiwan, and the Middle East.

The main implication is that we’re likely to see the end of the unipolar world order and the emergence of a multipolar world order.

Many people will be unprepared for that change of historical significance. However, when you look at the Big Picture, that is where I think we’re headed.

Unfortunately, most people have no idea what really happens when the world order changes, let alone how to prepare…

The coming crisis will likely be much worse, much longer, and very different than what we’ve seen since World War 2.

We’ll likely see entirely new political, social, and economic structures established to replace the crumbling ones from the post-WW2 era.

Countless millions throughout history were wiped out financially—or worse—during the previous world wars because they failed to see the correct Big Picture and take appropriate action.

Don’t be one of them.

But what if you get the Big Picture right?

The wealth-creating opportunities for those who correctly see what is happening and act upon it could be enormous.

That’s the difference between being on the right and wrong side of these changes of historical proportion.

It’s a rare fortune-building opportunity for those who see the investment implications of WW3 before others figure out what is really happening and how it’s likely to end.

That’s why I just released an urgent new report with all the details, including what you must do to prepare. It’s called The Most Dangerous Economic Crisis in 100 Years… the Top 3 Strategies You Need Right Now. Click here to download the PDF now.