GUEST BLOG: Seeby Woodhouse – Is it WW3 yet? Evaluating the Iran war as part of a larger globalised conflict

Call it what you like — “regional instability”, “escalation”, “proxy conflict” — but the US–Iran war is forcing a much bigger question into the open: are we already living through World War 3 and just refusing to say it out loud?

Most people watching the US-Iran war are asking whether the Strait of Hormuz stays open, how long the fighting lasts, and what happens to oil prices. These are reasonable questions. They’re also the wrong ones.

So… is this already World War 3?

The bigger question — the one almost nobody is asking publicly — is whether this is already a world war. And the uncomfortable answer is: it probably is. We just haven’t called it that yet.

Count the regional wars right now

• Russia-Ukraine (with NATO supplying weapons).
• Israel-Gaza-Lebanon.
• Yemen-Sudan.
• Now US-Israel-Iran.

Most of these conflicts involve nuclear powers either directly or as suppliers.

Layer on top the non-shooting wars — trade, technology, economic sanctions, geopolitical influence — and what you have is structurally identical to what historians would later label a world war. The difference is we’re living through the early stages, not reading about them afterwards.

Past world wars didn’t start with a single declared moment. They accumulated. Alliances formed, proxy conflicts multiplied, economic warfare preceded military warfare, and by the time it was obvious what was happening, it was already well underway. That pattern is repeating.

The sides are clearer than media portrays

China-Russia-Iran-North Korea on one side. US-Europe-Israel-GCC-Japan-Australia on the other. This isn’t speculation — it’s visible in UN voting records, bilateral treaties, weapons transfers, and economic ties.

• China buys 80-90% of Iran’s oil.
• Russia supplies China with energy.
• North Korea supplies Russia with ammunition. These aren’t coincidences; they’re a functioning alliance.

One number worth sitting with: the US has 750-800 military bases in 70-80 countries. China has one. Overextension is a historical predictor of decline, and the US is the most overextended major military power in modern history.

The uncomfortable part — we’re further along than we think

Macro investor Ray Dalio has tracked geopolitical cycles across 500 years of history and identifies a repeating sequence of steps that precede major wars. His current assessment is that the world is at approximately Step 9 of 13. That sequence looks like this:

1. Dominant power’s economic/military strength declines relative to rising powers
2. Economic wars — sanctions, trade blockages
3. Military and ideological alliances form
4. Proxy wars increase
5. Deficits and debt increase, especially for overextended powers
6. Governments take control of critical industries and supply chains
7. Trade chokepoints get weaponised (hello, Strait of Hormuz)
8. Powerful new war technologies emerge (hypersonics, drones, AI)
9. Multi-theatre conflicts happen simultaneously ← we are here
10. Internal dissent is suppressed in favour of national unity
11. Direct military combat between major powers
12. Massive debt, money printing, capital controls to finance war
13. One side wins; new world order is designed by the victor

Steps 1-9 are largely done. The question is whether 10-13 are inevitable or whether something interrupts the sequence.

The next war: Taiwan

The Iran conflict matters not just for what it is, but for what it reveals. Every nation with a US security guarantee is watching how America performs — how much it spends, how much it depletes, whether it follows through. Taiwan, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea — they’re all running the same calculation.

If the US gets bogged down in the Middle East and simultaneously faces a flashpoint in Asia, it cannot effectively fight both. China’s leadership knows this. The probability of a US-China military conflict over Taiwan is placed at 30-40%. A North Korea-involved conflict: 40-50% within five years. At least one of these conflicts materialising: greater than 50%.

The hardest truth

is that the most reliable historical predictor of who wins a war isn’t who’s most powerful — it’s who can endure the most pain for the longest. The US is the world’s most powerful military. It is also, historically, among the least tolerant of prolonged casualties and economic cost. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan all demonstrated this. Iran’s leadership, whatever its other failures, has demonstrated a capacity to absorb punishment that democratic governments with midterm elections cannot easily match.

So: is it WW3 yet?

Structurally, by most historical definitions — yes, it already qualifies. What we don’t yet have is the label, the declaration, or the single dramatic escalation that makes it undeniable. Those may come. Or the cycle might interrupt.

But betting on interruption because it’s more comfortable than the alternative isn’t analysis. It’s wishful thinking. And the map of where we are in the cycle suggests the more likely direction is forward, not back.

Ray Dalio’s full framework is in his book “Principles for Dealing with the Changing World Order” — worth reading if this topic interests you.