The attack on Iran by the United States and Israel has led to the outbreak of World War III, according to a false narrative circulating widely online in Romania. It was promoted by the extremist MEP Diana Șoșoacă in a TikTok post that had 1.7 million views and nearly 17,000 shares. In reality, the conflict is regional, and even in that area there have been other conflicts that have attracted more international players without becoming "world" events.
NEWS: Good morning, February 28, 9:00 a.m. [...]. Unfortunately, I have some bad news. I told you a few months ago that World War III had begun, in a strange way, but it had begun. There are open fronts everywhere. Well, now the US and Israel have attacked Iran, and the war has begun [...]. Unfortunately, Iran means the beginning of an international disaster, a disaster that will last a very long time, just as the disaster in Ukraine is lasting, and which will spread. Now let's see the reactions of the Arab countries, which in general have had... well, they haven't really had any reactions and have refrained from responding to Israel, and I don't understand why. You have to understand that Israel is not a powerful state in itself; it is a powerful state through the countries that act on its behalf and through the countries that remain silent when attacked by this state.
NARRATIVE: The US and Israel started World War III when they attacked Iran.
PURPOSE: To amplify panic and raise anxiety to alarming levels, using old arguments about the United States and Israel in order to gain political dividends. To promote far-right, essentially anti-Semitic narratives about Israel's hidden influence on a global scale. To maintain Diana Șoșoacă's visibility through a shocking statement, given that her political party is clearly outpaced in voter preferences by its competitors for the sovereignist segment (AUR).
The war in Iran does not meet the criteria for a world war: clashes between alliances in multiple geographical regions, war economies, mobilization of the population
WHY THE NARRATIVES ARE FALSE: The two world wars that have taken place in human history involved clashes between major alliances, fought on several continents, seas, and oceans. Therefore, a world war involves a confrontation between major powers (e.g., the US, Russia, China, Germany, France, the UK, etc.) or between opposing alliance systems (e.g., NATO vs. Russia and allies such as China, North Korea, Iran, etc.). At present, Iran has no military allies or mutual military assistance treaties that would prompt third powers to intervene on its behalf. Iran is confronting the United States and Israel and has launched attacks on other countries in and near the region (the Arab Gulf states, Jordan, Syria, Cyprus, Turkey), which, however, have not retaliated. And even if those countries decide to join the American-Israeli coalition, there is still no question of a world war as long as Iran is alone.
Beyond the lack of an alliance system, the geographical conditions for a world war are not met, as it is limited to the Middle East region. In fact, in recent decades, this region has seen conflicts involving a large number of state players, from the Arab-Israeli wars that broke out immediately after World War II to the more recent wars with Iraq (1991, 2003), which led to the mobilization of major international coalitions. Even the effort against the Islamic State a decade ago involved the participation of multiple international players, including Iran. However, none of these regional wars met the conditions for being declared a world war.
Other "technical" criteria that must be met for a war to be considered global include the conversion of economic systems to support military efforts ("war economies" with massive arms production), the mobilization of powerful armies, and the mobilization of the entire civilian population to support the armies behind the front lines. Again, none of these criteria are met.
Finally, depending on the geographical location of the major powers involved, maritime blockades arise, affecting global trade and, most likely, the international order. At present, however, the risks to trade are limited to energy exports from the Gulf region, which have been affected, leading to increases in global prices and reactions on the stock markets. However, the impact on energy is far from that seen during the Arab-Israeli war of 1973–1974 (in which the parties were heavily supported with weapons by allied powers hostile to each other, the US and the USSR, without them actually fighting each other) when Arab oil exporters imposed an embargo. Energy sources have diversified significantly since 1974; moreover, global trade as a whole is not affected at this time.
After 1945, nuclear arsenals have discouraged escalation to a world war
CONTEXT: The idea of starting a world war has been floated repeatedly since 1945, and in recent years, against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine, Russian propaganda has insistently revived it, attempting to cause panic among Western societies in order to undermine support for Kyiv. Over the past 80 years, there have been countless moments of tension between the major powers globally, but direct confrontation has been avoided due to a factor that did not exist before 1945: nuclear weapons and the threat of mutual destruction if they were used.
World war has been avoided even in the context of global competition and indirect conflict, which are still ongoing. The best example of global conflict is the Cold War, in which the USSR and the US were engaged in a "frozen" conflict, i.e., without direct confrontation with weapons. This confrontation was not "hot," hence the name "cold" war, but was carried out through intermediaries (see Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc.).
In the bipolar world after World War II, conflicts smoldered, erupted, or were fought through intermediaries until the fall of the USSR and the emergence of Russia.
Therefore, there was military, ideological, and economic competition, but the great powers never confronted each other directly. Let us not forget the Cuban missile crisis, which brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, the tensest moment of the Cold War, far from what we are experiencing today, when Russia has not even reacted five days after its main ally in the Middle East was attacked.
The risk of world war comes rather as a result of the Russian aggression in Ukraine
The large-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was the defining moment and trigger for discussions about the first major war in Europe since World War II or the escalation of the conflict into a world war.
The unprovoked attack, the rhetoric of dictator Vladimir Putin and his acolytes about Ukraine "not existing" and about liberating the Russian people in Ukraine, was strikingly reminiscent of Adolf Hitler's Nazi rhetoric when he invaded Czechoslovakia, invoking the "right to self-determination" or to "protect" the Germans in the Sudetenland.
Moreover, for the first time in decades, there was talk of a possible attack on a NATO member state, which would have involved the entire North Atlantic alliance in the conflict (invoking Article 5) and would have brought us closer to the definition of a world war or, more likely, would have turned it into a global conflagration (system of alliances in conflict, several major powers involved, global economic and military mobilization, etc.).
It should be noted that Diana Șoșoacă, a promoter of anti-Ukrainian and pro-Russian rhetoric, has never expressed concern that Russia could force the outbreak of a world war through its imperial conquest campaign, typical of the great powers in both world wars of the 20th century.
By inducing panic, Diana Șoșoacă is capitalizing on Romania's complicated economic and social conflict
The context in Romania in which this alarmist claim that World War III has begun is being made is difficult, if not critical, and includes several crises, at the end of which it is possible that the extremist pole will end up in a governing coalition:
· Politics: The future of the current government is in question due to tensions within the coalition, and one of the most likely scenarios is a future government with an extremist party that would thus reach the highest decision-making positions in Romania;
· Economy: Higher tariffs, taxes, and bills caused by the austerity measures taken by the Bolojan government to reduce Romania's largest deficit in the EU, caused by the former government;
· Administration: The national budget is blocked, as are administrative and other reforms in the public sector, due to tensions within the governing coalition;
· Justice: The reform of magistrates' pensions, as well as the flood of overturned convictions of major criminals and cases that drag on in magistrates' offices until they become time-barred, have deepened the rift and animosity between society and the judiciary and prosecutors, leading to a decline in confidence in the justice system.
· Other crises: These contribute to and deepen tensions in society, strengthen the extremist political pole, fuel nostalgia for totalitarian regimes, and, in general, bring the electorate closer to pro-Russian parties and leaders.
