Is World War III Already Here?

Authored by Jay Solomon via The FP.com,

The ‘Axis of Upheaval‘ is on the march—and the U.S. must figure out how to respond.

If it feels like the world is on fire right now, that’s because it is. From Ukraine to Syria to the Korean Peninsula, a widening array of conflicts is raising questions among defense experts: Is it 1914 again? 1939? Has World War III already started and we’re just now figuring it out?

For retired Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, who served as Donald Trump’s second national security adviser from 2017–2018, the answer is clear.

“I think we’re on the cusp of a world war,” McMaster told The Free Press. “There’s an economic war going on. There are real wars going on in Europe and across the Middle East, and there’s a looming war in the Pacific. And I think the only way to prevent these wars from cascading further is to convince these adversaries they can’t accomplish their objectives through the use of force.”

That won’t be easy. Consider the facts:

• In Ukraine, thousands of North Korean soldiers have recently joined Russian ground troops to bolster President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of the country. Meanwhile, Russia has opened up a new front in the war by entering the northeast Kharkiv region, as it continues to assault Ukraine’s cities and block its ports.

• A U.S.-brokered ceasefire in Lebanon that forced terror group Hezbollah to retreat from Israel’s northern border is showing signs of unraveling. Meanwhile, the Jewish state is still fighting a war in the Gaza Strip, where around 60 Israeli and U.S. hostages remain. And last month, Israel’s air force destroyed much of Iran’s air defense systems, leaving Tehran’s nuclear facilities exposed to future attacks.

• Rebels in Syria have recently seized key areas of the country that had been controlled for years by dictator Bashar al-Assad and his Russian and Iranian backers. Now that these insurgents have taken Aleppo, they are vowing to march on Damascus.

• In the Baltic Sea, investigators suspect a Chinese ship of sabotaging critical underwater data cables that linked NATO states. Concerns about CCP aggression are mounting amid an emerging consensus in Washington that China would defeat the U.S. in a Pacific war, largely due to Beijing’s naval superiority.

• And on Tuesday, South Korea’s president briefly declared martial law, alleging he needed to fend off a North Korean–backed coup led by the opposition party. Massive protests caused him to back down, and he is now facing impeachment proceedings.

These wars, rebellions, and spy tales may appear disconnected. But in reality, they all point to a widening global conflict that is pitting the U.S. and its allies against China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea—nations all fixated on toppling the West. Strategists have even come up with catchy nicknames for this anti-American coalition, dubbing the bloc the “Axis of Aggressors” or the “Axis of Upheaval.”

Philip Zelikow, who served as executive director of the 9/11 Commission and counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from 2005 to 2007, is among those who think these conflicts are related. “I think there is a serious possibility of what I call worldwide warfare”—meaning a world war that is not as coordinated as past global conflagrations. “It’s not hard to see one of these conflicts crossing over into another.”

As Trump prepares to enter office next month, his primary foreign policy task should be to prevent an actual full-blown World War III, sources told The Free Press—or to stop it from metastasizing if it’s already here.

To do this, the president-elect will have to fortify alliances with NATO, South Korea, and Japan—partnerships Trump has already shown he’s skeptical of. And he will need to stare down a number of American adversaries, including Putin, Chinese president Xi Jinping, and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un—a despot for whom Trump has expressed both scorn and admiration.

At the same time, Trump benefits from his willingness to break from past U.S. policies and institutions that have helped foment these current conflicts. This includes a defense industry that doesn’t produce the right weapons to compete with China or enough munitions to arm Ukraine. Defense strategists in previous U.S. administrations have been blind to the Axis of Aggressors’ moves to expand their global power, sources told me—placing too much faith in global institutions, such as the United Nations, that were incapable of checking them.

Trump, with his nontraditional advisers such as Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, could potentially revolutionize the way the U.S. builds and projects power, sources told me. SpaceX CEO Musk, in particular, could marry America’s military establishment with Silicon Valley’s start-up culture to produce, at scale, the types of smart airplanes, drones, and submarines needed to deter Washington’s enemies, they said.

But Trump’s desire to shake up Washington and dismantle many of its national security institutions comes with enormous risk. The disruption of the Pentagon, State Department, and FBI could make the U.S. and its allies more vulnerable if these institutions become inoperable or less efficient, current and former officials told The Free Press.

“What he’s gonna need is some agenda to bring the world back together after he pulls things apart,” said David Asher, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, who oversaw U.S. government operations against Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran in the George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations.

The threat of a widening global conflict is being driven by factors reminiscent of events before the start of World War I, sources told me. This includes the breakdown in alliances and trading systems and the arrival of disruptive technologies like airplanes, telephones, and mechanized weapons. Today, there is no longer a consensus that free trade will bring countries closer together and forestall future wars. And the Covid-19 pandemic revealed the dangers of reliance on China for medical supplies. Trump’s threats to slap high tariffs on China and other countries also raise the specter of greater conflict.

“What you learn when you study economic history is that long cycles do end and when they do, they end with war,” said Asher, who’s worked on Wall Street and said he has recently briefed financial institutions on the threat of a global conflict.

Both McMaster and Zelikow said that the Syrian civil war that started nearly 15 years ago should have been a major wake-up call to the U.S., Europe, and NATO. The Obama administration tried to oust al-Assad through diplomacy and talks that included Russia and Iran, the strongman’s primary patrons. But then the U.S. and Europe were blindsided in 2015 when Moscow and Tehran propped up al-Assad with both air and ground troops.

“We started talking about great power rivalry and all of that, but we didn’t really do anything to arrest these trends,” said Zelikow, who’s now a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

This Syrian playbook can now be seen in Ukraine. Iran, North Korea, and China have all been supplying weaponry or technologies to Russia, while Iranian-backed Houthi fighters are now reported to be on the Ukrainian battlefield alongside North Korean troops.

The war in the Middle East, sparked by Hamas’s invasion of Israel on October 7, 2023, has also attracted this broader axis. The Houthis, in support of Hamas, have been attacking international ships in a critical transit strait of the Red Sea. And they’ve been getting guidance from both Tehran and Moscow, according to current and former U.S. officials.

On the north side of the strait, an Iranian general is “directing the Houthis using Russian intelligence,” McMaster told The Free Press. On the south side, “you have an Iranian surveillance ship. And you have a Chinese [naval] port, you know? I mean, that’s not by mistake.”

How will the Trump administration confront this emboldened axis? A significant divide among foreign policy strategists may prove difficult to bridge. In one corner are hawks and traditional Republican conservatives—such as incoming National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio, and UN Ambassador designee Elise Stefanik—who have called for a muscular defense of Pax Americana. They’re expected to press Trump to continue arming Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, and even amp up our military support to preserve the Western order.

On the opposing side is an isolationist wing reflected in the public musings of Trump’s eldest son, Don Jr., who tweeted on November 17 about the Biden administration’s decision to provide long-range missiles to Ukraine:

The Military Industrial Complex seems to want to make sure they get World War 3 going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives. Gotta lock in those $Trillions. Life be damned!!! Imbeciles!

Trump’s vice president J.D. Vance, and his advisers, including Tucker Carlson to Tulsi Gabbard, also believe U.S. military overreach led to catastrophic U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and needless Western provocations of Putin that sparked his invasion of Ukraine. They argue that stepping back, rather than expanding, is the key to global peace.

Some Trump confidantes told The Free Press they’ve been studying U.S. policies that led up to the past two world worlds as guidance for today. They have concluded that Washington was too lenient on Hitler’s Germany leading into World War II, but too committed to European allies in the early 1900s ahead of World War I. And they believe Trump will need to strike a balance between these two postures.

“I think you have to learn the lessons of both wars,” Peter Thiel, the tech investor and close Trump ally, told The Free Press last month. “You can’t have excessive appeasement, and you also can’t go sleepwalking into Armageddon. In a way, they’re opposite lessons.”

*    *    * 

Jay Solomon is an investigative reporter for The Free Press and author of The Iran Wars. Follow him on X at @FPJaySolomon and read his piece, “Inside the Battle over Trump’s Foreign Policy.”