WWIII & Threats to World Peace: An Analysis of the United States, Iran, China, and Russia
“What country is the biggest threat to world peace?”
I recently asked that question on a social media post and received a lot of interesting feedback from people of different backgrounds. Many from the U.S. and Europe said China or Russia is the greatest threat, while majority of my followers from Israel all said Iran. Several people didn’t comment a country at all; rather, they said things like “politicians,” “Islamic terrorism,” “humans,” or “the media is the enemy to peace.” Some were more apathetic and said, “peace is an illusion” or “there will never be world peace.” However, what I found most interesting was how many people commented that the United States was the biggest threat to world peace. These comments weren’t from outsiders. They were from American citizens, most of which were U.S. military veterans.
As a special operations veteran turned worldwide security professional, I have witnessed firsthand the complexities of international conflict and the multifaceted nature of global peacekeeping. My experiences have led me to understand that threats to world peace are not merely the products of overt aggression but are also deeply intertwined with economic stability, military and security capabilities, ideological differences and environmental concerns. It is quite evident that the four most mentioned countries: the United States, China, Russia, and Iran have the greatest impact on global instability. Except, which one is leading us closer to WWIII and poses the biggest threat to world peace?
This analysis covers the United States and the impacts of their global presence, China’s hundred-year strategy to become the world’s biggest superpower, Russia as the global boogey man, and Iran as the leading sponsor of global terrorism. Addressing these threats each country imposes requires a nuanced understanding of each actor’s motivations and capabilities, as well as a comprehensive approach to global security that includes diplomatic, economic, and military dimensions.
The United States - A Double-Edged Sword
During the recent Presidential debate against former President Donald Trump, President Joe Biden said, “We are the most admired country in the world. We’re the United States of America. There’s nothing beyond our capacity.” He continued by saying, “we’re the envy of the world. Name me a single major country president who wouldn’t trade places with the United States of America. For all our problems and all our opportunities, we’re the most progressive country in the world in getting things done. We’re the strongest country in the world.” In many ways, I agree with the President that we are envied by majority of the world and people would kill for the opportunities we have that we often take for granted. Without a doubt, the United States remains the world's foremost world superpower, characterized by its extensive global presence and formidable capabilities. Nevertheless, the power and privilege we have to live our way of life comes at a great cost, which is the double-edged sword.
The U.S. military's advanced technology, including nuclear weapons, cyber warfare capabilities, and a vast network of military bases worldwide, highlights its dominant position in international security. The U.S. possesses a robust nuclear arsenal, with a triad of land-based missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and strategic bombers. Although this arsenal acts as a deterrent against other major powers, it also escalates global nuclear arms competition, as seen in the new arms race with Russia and China. Likewise, Iran is in constant pursuit of seeking nuclear capabilities, despite international pressure to prevent it. Secretary of State Blinkin stated at the Aspen Security Forum on July 19th, that Iran is “probably one or two weeks away” from producing the fissile material to build a nuclear weapon. Likewise, the U.S. alliances through NATO and bilateral agreements spreads our influence globally. Even though these alliances contribute to collective security, they equally contribute to geopolitical tensions, especially in regions such as Eastern Europe and the South China Sea. Ironically, we are sowing the grounds with seeds for potential conflict, while simultaneously trying to prevent it. Where many of the U.S. veterans shared concerns about in the comments of my post, was that we are spending billions of dollars overseas, creating chaos, while the United States citizen is suffering and paying the price for it.
U.S. military veterans from the Global War on Terror have increasingly raised their voices against any new wars or actions by the U.S. that could potentially draw us into another prolonged conflict. Veterans are justified in being angry and passionate about this issue, after our country spent over 20 years in Afghanistan, just to watch it collapse into the hands of the Taliban (and that’s putting it gently). Many critics opposing the Global War on Terror believe that we are making problems worse around the world by sticking our noses where it doesn’t belong. On the other hand, many others, think there is a need for providing aid and assistance overseas, in areas of conflict, as part of our National Security Strategy. The U.S. claims to promotes democracy and human rights, but this approach can be perceived as interventionist. The pursuit of regime change in countries like Iraq and Libya has led to prolonged instability and conflict, which threatens global peace and takes a heavy toll on the American taxpayer.
The economic strength of the United States supports its military ambitions and global influence. However, economic stability also intersects with global peace in complex ways. The U.S. employs economic sanctions as a tool of foreign policy, targeting nations such as Iran and Russia. Although sanctions aim to alter state behavior, they often lead to economic hardship for civilians and can fuel anti-American sentiments, thereby exacerbating global tensions. Moreover, trade policies and tariffs, like the Section 301 tariffs imposed on China by both the Trump and Biden administrations, have contributed to global economic instability. These tariffs were put into place in response to China’s unfair trade practices and to counteract the resulting economic harm on the American people. Although these trade disputes can escalate into broader conflicts, affecting international relations, it is a more appropriate response than any military action.
The United States has unparalleled military power and economic influence and plays a complex role in world peace. Although its capabilities offer protection and deterrence, they also contribute to global conflict and tension. Moreover, our National Security Strategy is driven by what current administration is in control of the White House, and this current presidential election has highlighted how divided the two parties are on their policies. While Americans think in four-year election cycles, Chinese leaders think in terms of centuries.
China – Hundred Year Marathon
In an anthology of political theories outlined by Chinese President Xi Jinping, called The Governance of China, Xi promises they can achieve what he labels the “China Dream” by the year 2049, which is exactly one century after the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) during the Chinese Communist Revolution. In a best-selling book in China, titled The China Dream, Col. Liu Mingfu of the People’s Liberation Army, describes China’s strategy to surpass and replace the United States as the world’s premier superpower. In his book, Col Liu states that China should strive to avoid antagonizing the United States too soon as the Soviet Union did during the Cold War. Instead, he suggests China should take measures to slowly influence U.S. foreign policy.
“The competition between China and the United States will not take the form of a world war or a cold war. It will not be like a shooting duel or a boxing match but more like a track and field competition. It will be like a protracted marathon.” – Col Liu Mingfu
When most of us think of threats to world peace, we tend to exclusively think of war; however, China’s Hundred-Year Marathon will be focused on supremacy over economics, trade, currency, resources and geopolitical alignments. President Xi Jinping released his vision for China’s global leadership at the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, saying, “major country diplomacy with Chinese characteristics aims to foster a new type of international relations and build a community with a shared future for mankind.” In 2019, China surpassed the United States in the size of its diplomatic network, citing 276 diplomatic posts, including embassies, consulates, and permanent missions to international organizations. Although this may not sound like a bad thing for world peace, China’s loans and investments, including those made under Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), have created debt traps for countries in need of financial support and investment.
Sri Lanka was forced to sign over physical control of dual-use infrastructure after defaulting on Belt and Road loans and entered a severe financial crisis in 2022. Likewise, Laos, also a major recipient of BRI lending, is confronting a major debt crisis with $12.2 billion in public debt to China alone, which is over 60% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Moreover, From 2012 to 2020, Djibouti undertook $14 billion of investments and loans from China, the equivalent of 70% of their GDP. Additionally, Zambia, who recently restructured their financial agreement with France, UK, South Africa, Israel, India, and China and approved through the International Monetary Fund, is in $6.3 billion worth of external debt to 18 PRC financers, leaving the Zambian government in perpetual economic turmoil. According to the Boston University Chinese Loans to Africa Database, Chinese financiers signed 1,188 loan commitments worth $160 billion with African governments and their state-owned enterprises between 2000 and 2020. The top loan recipient countries over the last 20 years included Angola, Zambia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, and Cameroon, and most recently the largest recipients included Ghana, South Africa, and Cote D’Ivoire. BRI countries all together may have $386 billion in hidden debts or undisclosed liabilities that governments might be obliged to pay to China.
In addition to its recent economic dominance, China’s military modernization efforts are transforming it into a formidable global power. China is progressively modernizing its naval capabilities, cyber warfare, and missile technology. Moreover, China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea has led to territorial disputes and tensions with neighboring countries, like the Philippines, a strong U.S. ally. China’s claims of sovereignty over the sea is, in part, due to the sea’s estimated 11 billion barrels of untapped oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. China’s assertiveness to claim these resources has led to increased efforts to expand islands in size or creating new ones all together by piling sand onto existing reefs and constructing ports, airstrips and other military installations. Under the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), claimant countries neighboring the South China sea, such as Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Vietnam and the Philippines, should have freedom of navigation through exclusive economic zones in the sea and are not required to notify claimants of military activities. However, China has continued to militarize the area, in particular, the Paracel and Spratly Islands, where it has 27 outposts, with the capability to deploy fighter jets, cruise missiles, and radar systems.
In 2016, I was a member of the Maritime Special Operations Liaison Element for U.S. Pacific Command in the Philippines. During that time, China’s increased presence in the Spratly Islands was one of the biggest concerns for our Filipino maritime partners. We would constantly get reports about Chinese war ships deterring Filipino fishermen from being able to fish in their waters. Unfortunately, the Filipino Navy has very limited capability to prevent Chinese forces from operating in these contested waters and they rely heavily on U.S. assistance through Section 333 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Building Partner Capacity Program. This program authorizes the U.S. Department of Defense to provide training and equipment to foreign countries' national security forces. As stated, prior, many do not believe the U.S. should be interfering in foreign affairs abroad. However, if China is allowed the freedom to continue to bully neighboring countries in the South China Seas and continuously expand and create islands, while increasing its military presence, then who is capable of stopping them? Current Philippine President, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., has strengthened its partnerships with other Indo-Pacific neighbors, and signed deals to increase base access, joint exercise training and weapons transfers with the United States. Similarly, in March 2024, the Philippines extended the United States Mutual Defense Treaty, in hopes of deterring China’s efforts.
In addition to threatening peace in the Asia-Pacific region, China has increased its alliance with Russia, which has helped bolster their campaign in Ukraine. China and Russia announced their “no limits” partnership in February 2022, just a few weeks prior to Russia invading Ukraine. Last year, trade between the two countries went to a record high of $240 billion and continued to grow in the first quarter 2024. Russia is sending oil and natural gas east, and in return, they’re receiving cars, machinery, and critical components to keep its defense industrial base operating. China is providing Russia with drone and missile engines, as well as semiconductors that Russia needs for its defense industry. What’s even more important is what Russia is providing China in return. Their partnership is providing China with advanced military and aerospace technology, which includes advanced air defense systems and some of the advanced technology used in China’s breakthrough new quiet submarines. This partnership, in conjunction with China’s Hundred-year plan to replace the United States as the leading global superpower, will continue to disrupt global peacekeeping efforts.
Russia – The Global Boogieman
Historically, Russia has typically been presented as the boogieman to the West, at least most certainly in the United States. During the cold war, the Soviet Union and the United States competed for global influence, involving a nuclear arms race, space, espionage, propaganda, and regional conflict proxy wars. Russia’s military capabilities reflect both its historical legacy and current modernization efforts. Russia possesses one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world, which serves as a significant deterrent but also continues to fuel arms race dynamics with the United States and other NATO aligned countries. Its strategic nuclear forces include intercontinental ballistic missiles and advanced delivery systems. Russia’s ongoing military interventions in Ukraine and Syria demonstrate its efforts to reassert regional influence and these actions challenge international peace and contribute to global security concerns.
Although many would call Russia’s recent actions in Ukraine unprovoked and the wild ambitions of its leader, President Putin and other Russian officials claim Ukraine’s ambitions to align itself with more Western countries and interest in joining NATO was an act of aggression. According to a translated readout of a January 28, 2022, call between Putin and French President Emmanuel Macron, Putin views NATO expansion as a “fundamental concern.” Yet, joining NATO isn’t the only issue. There are other ideological concerns. In 2014, Russia annexed the Crimea region of Ukraine, under the claim of protecting ethnic Russians and Russian speakers from Ukrainian persecution. During the controversial interview between political news correspondent, Tucker Carlson, and the Russian president, Putin said he was threatened by Ukraine after they had abandoned the Minsk agreements, which had ended the fighting in 2014-2015. He went on to say, it was because NATO was building military bases in Ukraine, which would be used to attack Russia and that Ukraine was planning to attack Russian-occupied areas of the Donbas region. Although many of these claims have been disputed by critics in the West, it emphasizes the aggressive measures Russia is willing to take to get what it wants and protect their interests. Nonetheless, the conflict with Ukraine has had drastic impacts on the global economy.
Since the war began, the U.S. Congress has voted through five bills to provide Ukraine with ongoing aid, with a total budget authority of $175 billion dollars. The U.S. is by far the biggest provider of military assistance to Ukraine by a long shot, with the U.K. in second with a pledge of £12.5 billion in support. Russia’s economic stability is influenced by its reliance on energy exports and international sanctions. Russia is the world’s largest oil exporter, and their economy depends heavily on oil and gas exports. Fluctuations in global energy prices and sanctions impact its economic stability, which in turn affects its foreign policy and military strategies. Before the war, majority of Russia’s oil, approximately 60%, went to Europe and 20% went to China. Since the invasion of Ukraine, the U.S., UK and EU, along with countries Australia, Canada and Japan, have imposed more than 16,500 sanctions on Russia. International sanctions have isolated Russia from global financial systems, affecting its economy and international relations. However, Russian President Vladimir Putin has claimed European sanctions have done Russia no harm, claiming, “We have growth, and they have decline.” In a way, Putin is right. Russia has managed to sell oil abroad for more than the G7’s price cap and the International Energy Agency says Russia is still exporting 8.3 million barrels of oil a day, due to their increased supplies to India and China. Nevertheless, these sanctions have resulted in a slight decrease in the overall economic growth and GDP.
In addition to support from China, Iran has recently provided Russia with approximately 400 surface-to-surface ballistic missiles. Despite longstanding historical animosity and ideological differences between Russia and Iran, the current situation of Russia as an adversary in the European theater and Iran as an adversary in the Middle East theater, incentivizes both governments to cooperate more closely in a manner that threatens the objectives and interests of the United States and its network of allies and partners. Iran has been hesitant to assist Russia in the past, due to retaliation from the U.S. and European countries. However, in October 2023, a U.N. arms embargo on missile transfers to Iran ended, which legally allows them to supply missiles. Likewise, the war in Gaza, and their support Hamas has significantly diminished the chances for further U.S. – Iran agreements. Iran is using these opportunities to strengthen its ties with Russia. While Iran helps feed Russia with munitions, artillery shells and drones, Russia is providing Iran with Russian Su-35 fighter jets and Mi-28 attack helicopters. Moreover, in February 2024, Russia sent an Iranian satellite into orbit. A revisionist axis between Russia, Iran and China is an extremely challenging dilemma for the security and sovereignty of the U.S. and its allies.
Iran – The Largest Sponsor of Global Terrorism
With slogans like “Death to America and Death to Israel,” it should come as no surprise that Iran is a threat to the United States and its allies. In terms of geographical scope, Iran’s influence extends well outside its borders and spans across the Middle East and to Muslims all around the world. Using proxies as an “Axis of Resistance” enables Iran to project power and influence while reducing the risk of direct confrontation with key adversaries, like the United States and Israel. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, one of the key priorities of the Iranian regime has been exporting its revolution abroad. Iran’s conventional military forces are comparatively weaker than those of global superpowers. However, Iran’s global Islamic revolutionary strategy emphasizes asymmetric warfare, including support for proxy groups in Lebanon (Hezbollah), Gaza (Hamas), Yemen (Houthis) and multiple groups in Syria (NDF, LDF, and Shia militias). Iran’s ideological framework is rooted in Shia Islam and anti-Western sentiments. Iran’s ideological opposition to Western powers, particularly the U.S., shapes its foreign policy. Unlike the military intervention we’ve done in other countries throughout the Middle East, the U.S. and its European allies have mostly resorted to the use of sanctions and restrictions on cooperation with Iran in foreign trade, financial services, energy sectors and technologies, and banned the provision of insurance and reinsurance by insurers in member states to Iran and Iranian-owned companies.
Although International sanctions have affected Iran's economy in the past, especially their oil sector, the U.S. sanctions under the Obama, Trump and Biden administration have not hurt Iran enough to significantly change its behavior. Because they’ve willingly limited enforcement, the sanctions have not significantly impacted Iran’s economy or its relationships with its proxies. The U.S. State Department assessed that Iran spent more than $16 billion on support for the Assad regime and its proxies between 2012 and 2020. In 2020 alone, Iran funneled more than $700 million to support Hezbollah’s efforts in Lebanon. In addition, after a Saudi-led coalition intervened in Yemen’s war in 2015, Iran expanded training and arms shipments to the Houthi backed rebels. In 2018, I was deployed to Yemen in support of counter terrorism efforts throughout the country. Although our mission was focused primarily on defeating Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS, another large concern was the smuggling of weapons coming from Iran into Saana, the Houthi controlled capital of Yemen. Despite the sanctions imposed by the U.S. and our allies, we regularly received reporting from our Arab coalition partners regarding rockets and other weapons coming from Iran. The Houthi control of western Yemen poses a significant threat to the freedom of movement for international shipments through the Bab-el-Mandeb strait and the Red Sea. Today, the Iranian-backed Houthi are responsible for carrying out at least 70 attacks on commercial ships since mid-November 2023.
Likewise, Iran was able to fund the Hamas terror group in Gaza, which most carried out the October 7 massacre in southern Israel that killed over 1,200 Israelis and other foreign nationals and took over 240 hostages (8 of which are U.S. citizens). Iran’s support for the Palestinian cause has mostly remained ideological, given Jerusalem’s religious significance for Muslims. Iran’s 1979 constitution affirmed its duty to export the Iranian revolution to assist “the dispossessed” around the world. Last year, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, in an interview with Al Jazeera television, said that his group had recently received $70 million in military help from Iran. Furthermore, the U.S. State Department estimated previously that Iran’s support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, reached $100 million a year since 2012. After the attack on Israel in October by Hamas and the controversial retaliatory response by Israel in Gaza, the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, and militias in Iraq and Syria, have launched attacks on Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East, raising the risk of a wider regional war. I’ve been fortunate to have made three trips to Israel since Oct 7, with a nonprofit that helps support Israeli forces. During these trips, I’ve been able to see firsthand the impact these Iranian-backed forces have on Israel, and the citizens of Gaza and the West Bank. Like Iran, Hamas has weaponized their interpretation of Islam and sharia law and uses fear and oppression to enforce their restrictions and harsh punishments.
Interestingly, Iranian-backed organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah are gaining sympathy and support from Western college students across Europe and the U.S. college campuses. There have been many pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah banners, flags, and rhetoric at Pro-Palestine demonstrations protesting the war in Gaza. It’s ironic given that U.S. college students were recently united against Iran’s oppression of women’s rights only a year prior. With their fundamental hatred for the U.S., Israel and Western ideology, their funding of international terrorism and inching closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon, Iran is one of the greatest threats to global stability.
So who is the biggest threat to world peace?
The answer really comes down to perspective. As a United States citizen, I know our government and its foreign policies are far from perfect. I love our way of life and truly believe we do a lot of good around the globe because of our country’s strong ideological belief in freedom, human rights, and opportunities for prosperity. I’ve seen firsthand the good we are capable of doing around the world, and unfortunately, I’ve also witnessed the bad. Our military might and global influence is a delicate balance between maintaining international dominance and mitigating global tensions. As we help smaller and resource strained countries deter China, Russia, and Iran from inflicting their power and influence, we put a strain on our country’s economy and maintain that projection as the world’s police force. Furthermore, our good intentions can often be seen as a ruse to just gain the access and placement we need to exploit the resources of the country we are claiming to protect. Nonetheless, despite what others may think about our involvement overseas, I do not think the U.S. is the biggest threat to world peace.
China’s rise as a global power introduces new dynamics in international relations, characterized by both economic growth and regional assertiveness. Their long-term Hundred-year strategy is a very critical factor to note when looking at their impact to global security. Likewise, Russia’s resurgence as a major power involves a combination of military strength and nationalist ideologies that challenges and feels threatened by the West. Lastly, Iran represents a complex actor whose policies impact Middle Eastern stability and global terrorism. Their sphere of influence in the Islamic world has helped perpetuate violence in not only the Middle East, but across Europe, and the United States. Personally, I believe they each have very different threat levels to world peace, with China being the biggest threat to the U.S. economy, Russia being the largest threat to safety in Europe and Iran being the greatest threat in the Middle East and perhaps globally because of their increasing worldwide influence on a radicalized ideology that aims to destroy democracy and our way of life.
Defense strategy demands a multifaceted approach that considers the complex interplay of these factors and seeks to address both immediate threats and underlying causes of conflict. With the growing relations between China, Russia, and Iran and the looming threat of World War III at our doorstep, the American people need to approach this upcoming Presidential election in the United States, with our National Security Strategy in mind.
Benjie Manibog
DSG cadre and Retired Marine Raider
