![A mother’s taweez and the Cape’s interfaith traditions [+ video]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Michael-Weeder-Book-Launch-9May26-360x180.webp)
As tensions between Iran, the US and Israel escalate, historical parallels with the world wars raise urgent questions about whether global geopolitics is once again drifting towards catastrophic conflict.
By SEDICK CROMBIE
The renowned Spanish-American philosopher, poet and novelist George Santayana said: ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’ This quotation has never been more relevant than what is currently taking place around global geopolitical developments as they play out.
The world probably never envisaged that we would be at a crossroads yet again, when developments during the early and middle part of the twentieth century made this planet such an unsafe place. That was the century of the two World Wars, including a number of smaller battles across the planet.
One would have imagined that the devastation the world was left with from these two calamities would have led to countries adopting a more pronounced and nuanced approach towards international disputes and disagreements. Alas, here we are once again standing at a precipice of fellow human annihilation, as current global instability reigns across many regions – the Middle East, Latin America, Eastern Europe, southern parts of Asia, etc.
It seems that humanity has not taken heed of the debilitating effects of large-scale military interventions pitting humanity and countries against each other. The signs of current global geopolitical developments are not very positive, and it seems that the world is once again slowly sliding towards a global outbreak of conflict amongst countries, making Santayana’s quotation a prophetic reality.
The United States and Israel: Preparing to invade Iran and the surge towards World War III:
The current global developments and deteriorating situation between the US and Israel on the one end and Iran on the other have taken on a new debilitating dimension, which is picking up speed at an alarming rate. Each new day brings new developments, threats and counter-threats, which continue to compound the already dire situation. No country or world leader appears prepared, nor do they possess the gravitas to try and calm the atmosphere. In some instances, such as the Europeans (EU), there is rather a silent giving of tacit approval to the US–Israeli side for their intentions.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, seems emboldened by his Hollywood-style kidnapping of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, and is now being egged on by Benjamin Netanyahu to use this momentum and set his sights on attacking Iran. This would effectively continue the previous 12-day war on Iran, after which Israel had to request the US to secure a ceasefire from the Iranians. Netanyahu sees the Maduro kidnapping as the ideal opportunity to continue from this former retreat and believes that the momentum is with them this time, to attack Iran with greater intensity and through a wider, multidimensional approach. The signs leading up to executing such an invasion are becoming increasingly pronounced by the hour, as the ante is being ramped up by the US, with Israel in the background.
The strategy first started with warnings to the Iranian government, then the sponsoring and funding of internal uprisings and destabilisation tactics spearheaded by US and Israeli intelligence agencies, the highlighting and continuous flighting of Iranian dissident voices and perspectives, the ramping up of mainstream, controlled media articles denigrating the Iranian leadership and its handling of the uprisings, to the eventual threat from Trump of American intervention to ‘protect’ the Iranian population. The sabre-rattling and pressure from the US are not easing or relenting, as Trump and Israel see this as a golden opportunity and defining moment to finally conclude their previous attempt at overthrowing the Iranian government and installing a ‘leader’ of their choice and liking.
Iran, on the other hand, has learned from the previous war with Israel, supported by the US, which took place from June 13 to June 24, 2025, and has made its own analysis of the situation. The country warned that if there are any signs pointing in the direction of potential US or Israeli attacks, it will not hesitate to conduct pre-emptive strikes of its own to deter any such threats. American military bases and warships in the region would be legitimate targets. Even European or Arab countries supporting such an American–Israeli attack would not be spared this time.
The previous 12-day war with Israel, coupled with American support, was a learning curve. This is therefore not seen as an idle threat, and the kidnapping of President Maduro has put the Iranians on high alert. They perceive the twin threat of Trump and Netanyahu as highly unpredictable. The Iranians have come to realise that the dictum ‘he who hesitates is lost’ is no longer merely a saying, especially with two warmongers at the helm in the US and Israel. Embarking on an Iranian nuclear programme would not be such an untenable idea anymore, but rather a strong deterrent to counter the unfettered, modern-day imperialist doctrine personified by Trump and Netanyahu.
At this moment the world holds its breath, with the situation between the protagonists on a knife’s edge and the whole scenario at a nadir. Could this be shades of a possibility for World War III – especially as the use of nuclear arms and warfare is no longer far-fetched, considering that Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which forbids the use of nuclear arms? Coupled with this is the Israeli Samson Option, which could literally be used as a last resort in the event of a perceived defeat in battle. We are living in dangerous and critical times, with the world on edge, and it seems that it has become a case of he who blinks first will be lost. With this comes the spectre of another World War looming large on the horizon.
Parallels with history: Déjà vu and is the world at a crossroads?
The world has been here before – twice, in fact – in 1914 with World War I (WWI) and in 1939 with World War II (WWII). In the first instance, the world conflict amongst nations started with the assassination of Crown Prince Franz Ferdinand of Austria by a Bosnian Serb in the Bosnia-Herzegovina capital, Sarajevo. In the second instance (WWII), it started when German leader Adolf Hitler invaded Poland. The protagonists in WWI were Britain, France, Russia and later Italy against Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire. In WWII the protagonists were Germany, Italy and Japan on the one hand, and the US, the UK, the Soviet Union, China and France on the other.
Realpolitik: The realism of geopolitics
What countries have learned, and need to ensure they remain continually aware of, is that alliances and geopolitical movements and agreements are fluid. Geopolitics and geopolitical agreements struck between countries are about shared interests and mutual benefits. Although loyalty to a partner in such agreements may be a noble principle, it is unfortunately not the defining criterion and final arbiter when a final decision is made. It is more about the precedence of one’s own interests above those of one’s partner or signatory to the agreement.
Although it is always expected of a country to honour such agreements and, in so doing, demonstrate unconditional support to its partner, this does not always happen. This is no better demonstrated than in the current case where the US has designs on Greenland. Trump has earmarked Greenland as a strategic American interest and has expressed a desire for the incorporation of this massive, ice-covered island into the United States. While he claims that Chinese and Russian vessels are laying in close proximity to Greenland, thus posing a threat to the US and its strategic interests, this contention has been clearly debunked by most analysts and military strategists.
Many interpret this sudden over-emphasis on the ice-capped island as more a case of having designs on the natural resources – oil, rare earth minerals and more – which this unspoilt environment possesses. Trump’s brazen approach does not shy away from his preparedness to declare the possible use of coercion in his attempts to wrest control from the current governing country, Denmark, should it not relinquish control of Greenland to the US. To Trump, it is of no significance or strategic interest that Denmark is a founder member of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation), a Western ally and a country that consistently signed up as a willing partner in America’s so-called ‘War on Terror’ and invasions of far-off foreign lands by the US.
All these factors have no bearing on America’s unilateral geopolitical interests and have become inconsequential to the US’s current Trumpian imperialistic approach. Previous American administrations used diplomacy, trade-offs and alliances to soften the blow of imperialism, where the hundreds of US bases strewn across the globe are a manifestation of this approach. Trump, on the other hand, does not favour quiet diplomacy and, although American foreign policy is broadly based on ‘America First’, he adopts a battering-ram approach to push through his designs, irrespective of who is in opposition – whether ally or foe.
What this demonstrates is that although governments establish and enter into ironclad agreements around economics, military support and other alliances, these can easily be torn apart when an unpredictable and unhinged individual ends up with the levers of power. This is not the first time in human history that this has occurred, as 1914 and 1939 have proven.
George Santayana’s quotation and modern-day geopolitical developments: An analogy
It would be a useful exercise to juxtapose the events of 1939 with modern-day geopolitical developments. The rise of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party were the major catalysts that took the world into battle in WWII from 1939 to 1945. They first embarked on a domestic campaign highlighting the reasons for Germany’s stagnant economy and internal woes at the time. They identified the cause of their economic woes as immigrants, labelled as ‘the other’ – Romani people, homosexuals, Jews and others.
To them, these groups were the sole reason why Germans could not prosper in their own country. This crude attempt at denigrating and vilifying anybody who was not German-born, or who looked different, later known as being ‘of Aryan birth’ (white, blonde and blue-eyed), meant such people were no longer welcome in Germany and had to be removed or eradicated from German society. Hitler had his Nazi Party Brownshirts, consisting of young men and women who went around ostracising, physically attacking and removing ‘the other’. Their refrain and chant was ‘Ausländer raus’ (foreigner out), a slogan examined in depth by Wesley D Chapin in his study on immigration and crime in Germany.
This is not dissimilar to modern-day MAGA (Make America Great Again) crowds, whose worldview is based on the same premise of regarding foreigners as the sole reason for domestic ills. To them, it is a patriotic duty to confront foreigners – mostly brown, black and Hispanic – and interrogate them on their presence in the US. What was initially seen as an oddity in Germany at the time, and which brought giggles in some quarters, quickly turned into a nightmare when the Nazi Party came to power on a wave of unimaginable support from the German population. The Nazi plan, once implemented, left the world with unimaginable horrors.
Fast forward to 2025–2026 and modern-day United States and Europe. We are once again presented with a US president who is commander-in-chief, presiding over a powerful military. He is supported by a fanatic base known as the MAGA fraternity, which has the same mentality of interpreting its woes as the result of ‘the other’. Once again, ‘the other’ is being portrayed as a threat to the American economy – taking jobs, responsible for crime, and attacking God-fearing white Americans. ‘The other’ is now represented by immigrants, Hispanics, blacks, Arabs and Muslims – shades of Nazi Germany.
These groups are now being hounded not by Brownshirts, but by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) forces, an enforcement unit brought into existence by a decree from Donald Trump. Their mandate is not dissimilar to that of Hitler’s Brownshirts of yesteryear, with the targeting of black, brown, Hispanic, Arab and Muslim-looking people, as well as liberals. As if fate is playing tricks with humanity, we are now witnessing America hosting the 2026 World Cup football event in conjunction with Canada and Mexico – another throwback to Hitler’s hosting of the Olympic Games in Berlin in 1936, where his main aim was to demonstrate German supremacy and superiority.
One can only wonder what Donald Trump will do when given such a global platform. To compound this narrative of denigrating ‘the other’, the mainstream media in the US and Europe are also beholden to this narrative, just as was the case under Joseph Goebbels during Nazi rule. The parallels in the run-up to WWII (1939–1945) and modern-day events are stark. It seems that history is playing a crude joke on humanity.
Conclusion:
The world finds itself in uncertain times, with countries embroiled in disputes across the globe. The polarisation between countries is becoming more entrenched and starker by the hour. Countries perceived as weak, economically and militarily, are feeling pressure exerted by those that are stronger. They are coerced into picking sides.
Where diplomacy and international institutions were once relied upon to settle conflicts and disputes, these mechanisms appear to have been abandoned and reduced to facetious exercises. Countries such as the USA, Israel and European (EU) states are increasingly ignoring and rejecting majority positions issued by international bodies. They believe they alone have the power to enforce decisions and are exempt from scrutiny for their actions and transgressions of international law and conventions.
You may also want to read
This superiority complex marginalises international institutions such as the United Nations (UN), International Criminal Court (ICC), International Court of Justice (ICJ), G20, World Health Organisation (WHO), World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). This unilateral and hegemonic approach accelerates global polarisation and pushes the world closer to the brink.
The final word belongs to German philosopher Karl Marx, author of Das Kapital, who famously wrote: ‘History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.’
It does indeed appear that current global developments vindicate his contention.
Sedick Crombie is a graduate from the University of the Western Cape (UWC) School of Government (SOG) and former and former teacher at Strand Secondary School. He is the author of the books My Apartheid Diary and South African Rugby – Untold stories of a divided country.
