The Global Story: Are we heading for World War Three?

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Global Story – Are We Heading for World War Three?

Global News Podcast – BBC World Service
Date: March 29, 2026
Host: Asma Khalid
Guest: Margaret MacMillan (Emeritus Professor, International History, University of Oxford)
Theme: As war continues to escalate in the Middle East involving the US, Israel, Iran, and over a dozen other countries, the episode explores whether we are on a path toward a wider, possibly global conflict, and what lessons history offers for both escalation and de-escalation.

---

Episode Purpose and Main Theme (03:00–03:17)

• Core Question: Are we on the verge of a third world war due to escalating conflicts in the Middle East?
• Host Asma Khalid introduces Margaret MacMillan to provide historical perspective on how local conflicts spiral into world wars and how such escalation may be prevented.

“Are we headed to World War Three? Now, Margaret, to be clear, I don't personally think we are, but it is a question people are asking. And so here at the outset, I wanna hear from you. Do you think it's a relevant question in this moment?”
— Asma Khalid (04:02)

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. What Triggers a World War? (04:10–06:14)

• MacMillan: Wars are often not carefully planned; they start from a combination of misjudgment, pride, fear, and accident.
• Historic precedents show nations get drawn in “like a sort of fight in a schoolyard,” sometimes against their intentions.

“We tend to think that wars are very carefully planned... In fact, if you look at past wars... a lot of what set it off, finally, was accident, and people misjudging their opponents and people feeling they didn't dare back down.”
— Margaret MacMillan (04:10)

• Definition of “World War”: No hard and fast definition; generally describes a conflict not confined to one part of the world, involving major powers across continents.

“A world war, I think, just is a fact of a global world, that there are these connections between different parts of the world and very difficult to confine war to a particular area.”
— Margaret MacMillan (05:44)

---

2. Scenario One: Paths to Escalation (06:14–13:20)

• Current Regional War: Now includes Iran, Israel, Lebanon, the UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and more—over a dozen countries.
• Potential for Expansion: Key risk factors:
  • Iran or its allies attacking global powers’ assets (e.g., tankers, naval vessels).
  • Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz, affecting global energy supplies and drawing in outside powers like China.
  • Other international actors perceiving opportunities to push their own agenda amid global distraction (e.g., China potentially moving on Taiwan).
• Historical Analogy: How the First World War grew from a regional event (assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand) due to alliances and chain reactions.

“I think the country that's likely to escalate it is probably Iran or allies of Iran... What will happen if Iran decides to go further and simply close the Straits of Hormuz, begin to really choke off, for example, China's oil supplies and gas supplies? [...] There is always a possibility of conflict spreading outside a region.”
— Margaret MacMillan (07:21–08:46)

• Emotion & Leadership:
  • Pride, loss aversion, and an unwillingness to back down are major factors.
  • Leaders may double down on mistakes to avoid appearing weak (Putin/Ukraine war cited as example).

“Once you start a war, once you get the losses, I think people become engaged. And there is often an argument that for the sacrifice that we've already made, we must continue to win the war.”
— Margaret MacMillan (09:01)

---

3. Historical Examples of Escalation by Accident (11:15–13:20)

• WWI Chain Reaction: Assassination leads to alliances kicking in rapidly, transforming a local incident into global conflagration.
• Misjudgments: “We should never assume things about war because we don't know how it's going to go.” (13:15)

---

4. Scenario Two: Paths to De-Escalation (14:53–18:46)

• Likelihood of Wider Involvement: China and Russia likely to be economically affected, but neither is keen to enter the conflict militarily.
  • Russia might intensify in Ukraine if other powers are distracted.
  • China could see an opportunity regarding Taiwan.

“I doubt if they'll be drawn in militarily. Why would they want to be?”
— Margaret MacMillan (15:23)

• De-escalation Levers:

  • Economic concerns (stock markets, unstable energy prices).
  • Domestic political pressure in the US (midterms, unpopularity of war).
  • Leverage over Israel by the US, internal dissent within Israel.
  • Past Iranian willingness to negotiate over nuclear material.

• Role of the UN: Offers a forum for negotiation; past successes include monitoring ceasefires and supporting post-conflict reconstruction.

“What we badly need at the moment is some sort of discussions which will be backed enough by outside other interested parties who want to make this work.”
— Margaret MacMillan (17:51)

---

5. Examples of Successful De-Escalation (21:02–25:19)

• Historical Precedents:
  • 19th-century German unification wars in Europe, contained by outside powers’ reluctance to get involved.
  • Near-miss – Korean airliner 007 (1983): Soviet downing of a civilian plane set off mutual fears, but open lines led to de-escalation.
    • Reagan and Thatcher postponed NATO exercises and reassured the Soviets, which averted catastrophe.
    • The lesson: Direct communication and reassurance are crucial in moments of misunderstanding.

“Diplomacy is very important. You need to know about the other side, you need to know what they're likely to do and you need to be in touch with them and you need to take measures to reassure the other side.”
— Margaret MacMillan (24:07)

• Cold War: “Mutually assured destruction” (MAD) prevented direct conflict between nuclear powers, though violence persisted in proxy and regional wars.

---

6. Do Economic Ties Prevent War? (25:50–27:19)

• Economic interdependence isn’t a panacea:
  • Britain and Germany were top trading partners before WWI—didn’t prevent war.
  • The “countries with McDonald’s don’t war” theory is debunked (Russia-Ukraine example).

“We shouldn't assume that one factor will keep everyone happy.”
— Margaret MacMillan (26:20)

---

7. Are We Already in a Global War? (27:19–28:37)

• Some leaders (e.g., Zelenskyy) believe World War III has already begun; MacMillan disagrees, stressing vigilance and resistance to fatalism.

“If we throw up our hands and say, well, nothing we can do, it's all going to happen, that's very dangerous as well. I think we have to keep on struggling against that...”
— Margaret MacMillan (27:58)

---

8. Western Complacency About War (28:52–30:04)

• Post-1945 peace in Europe is an anomaly; the reality is that war is ever-present and can return if societies are unprepared or complacent.
• Peace requires active maintenance, defense investment, and vigilance.

“Peace is something that doesn't just happen. It has to be maintained.”
— Margaret MacMillan (29:35)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Making peace is harder than making war.”
  — Margaret MacMillan, quoting Clemenceau (09:01)

• “It’s like looking at a very complicated chess game being played on many levels, and which factor is going to be the most important one.”
  — Margaret MacMillan (10:36)

• “Britain and Germany were each other's biggest trading partners before the First World War. Did that stop them from going to war? No.”
  — Margaret MacMillan (26:20)

• “We became smug. I think we felt we didn't do war anymore. That was something that those people somewhere else did.”
  — Margaret MacMillan (28:52)

---

Key Timestamps

• 03:17 – Guest introduction (Margaret MacMillan)
• 04:10 – Is WWIII a relevant question?
• 05:44 – What is a "world war"?
• 07:21 – How regional wars can escalate globally
• 09:01 – Ingredients for escalation: pride, leadership, loss aversion
• 11:15 – Historical accidents and miscalculations (WWI)
• 14:53 – Can wider powers (China, Russia) be drawn in?
• 16:47 – Economic and political domestic pressures
• 17:51 – Possible diplomatic off-ramps, role of the UN
• 21:02 – Examples of regional conflict containment and near-misses
• 24:07 – The necessity of diplomacy and reassurance
• 25:19 – Mutually assured destruction and nuclear deterrence
• 26:20 – Does economic interdependence prevent war?
• 27:58 – Are we already in World War III?
• 28:52 – The dangers of Western complacency about war

---

Takeaways

• Wars rarely unfold as meticulously planned; chain reactions, misjudgments, and pride often propel conflicts to escalation.
• The current Middle Eastern crisis bears some hallmarks of wider wars, but key actors likely want to avoid direct large-scale confrontation.
• Economic ties alone can’t prevent war; hard power, diplomacy, and willingness to engage in negotiation are all crucial.
• History provides both cautionary tales of escalation (WWI) and hopeful examples of de-escalation (Cold War).
• Maintaining peace requires vigilance, active effort, and refusing to slip into complacency.

---

Final Thoughts

The discussion ultimately urges listeners to resist fatalism, recognize the real risks, but also trust in diplomacy, awareness, and the capacity of global actors to avert catastrophe. The world stands at a crossroads, with history’s lessons both a warning and a guide.

---

Transcript

[Margaret MacMillan]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.

[Bleacher Report Announcer]

The Bleacher Report app is your destination for sports right now. The NBA is heating up, March Madness is here, and MLB is almost back. Every day there's a new headline, a new highlight, a new moment you've got to see for yourself. That's why I stay locked in with the Bleacher Report app. For me, it's about staying connected to my sports. I can follow the teams I care about, get real time, scores, breaking news and highlights all in one place. Download the Bleacher Report app today so you never miss a moment.

[Howie Mandel]

The Global Gaming League is presented by Atlas Earth, the fun cashback app. Hey, it's Howie Mandel and I am inviting you to witness history as me and my How We do it gaming team take on Gilly the King and Wallow267's million dollars gaming in an epic Global Gaming League video game showdown. Plus a halftime performance by multi platinum artist Travy McCoy. Watch all the and see who wins and advances to the championship match right [e-mail] that's globalgamingleague.com in partnership with LevelUp Expo.

[Asma Khalid]

Hey there. I'm Asma Khalid. And I'm Tristan Redman. And we're here with a bonus episode for you from the Global Story podcast. The world order is shifting. Old alliances are fraying and new ones are emerging. Some of this turbulence can be traced to decisions made in the United States. But the US Isn't just a cause of the upheaval. Its politics are also a symptom of it. Every day we focus on one story

[Margaret MacMillan]

looking at how America and the world shape each other.

[Asma Khalid]

So we hope you enjoy this episode and to find more of our show, just search for the Global Story wherever you get your BBC podcasts. You might remember from history class that the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 led led to the First World War. But our guest today, an expert on the history of war, says it's a lot more complicated.

[Margaret MacMillan]

There are masses of books and masses of articles. It's been estimated there's something like 32,000 things books in English alone on the origins of the First World War.

[Asma Khalid]

Seriously?

[Margaret MacMillan]

Wow. Because we still don't know, it's still debated.

[Asma Khalid]

It turns out wars often spiral out of control for all sorts of unexpected reasons, sometimes even by accident, miscalculation and pride. What started just over three weeks ago with the US And Israel bombing Iran now involves more than a dozen other countries. And despite some signs that the Trump administration wants to negotiate. It's not clear Israel and Iran feel the same way. And that has some people wondering if there really is an off ramp here, or could this continue to ratchet up and become an even bigger conflict?

[Margaret MacMillan]

Is there a potential that this war could evolve into? Darren Dare I say a World War III?

[Historical Narrator]

Could we be heading toward World War Three?

[Asma Khalid]

Could be a World War III? Are we headed for World War III? From the BBC, I'm Asma Khalid in Washington, D.C. and today on the Global Story, could we really be on the verge of World War iii?

[Margaret MacMillan]

My name's Margaret MacMillan, and I'm a retired professor of history at the University of Toronto and a retired professor of history, international history, at the University of Oxford, and I specialize in international relations of the 19th and 20th centuries.

[Asma Khalid]

I saw you were described as professor emeritus. Is that the official title they give you if you're retired?

[Margaret MacMillan]

Yes. Well, they give it to you to sort of when they put you out to grass, they give you a nice little title.

[Asma Khalid]

Well, thanks again for joining us. So we brought you on our show today to discuss a question that I have been hearing raised in recent days. It is a question I've heard from. From some listeners. It's also a question that I've been reading about. It's been percolating in the atmosphere, and that is, are we headed to World War three? Now, Margaret, to be clear, I don't personally think we are, but it is a question people are asking. And so here at the outset, I wanna hear from you. Do you think it's a relevant question in this moment?

[Margaret MacMillan]

Fortunately, I do think it's a relevant question. We tend to think that wars are very carefully planned, and those who go to war know exactly what they're doing, and they have very clear plans. In fact, if you look at past wars, and I'm thinking particularly of the First World War, a lot of what set it off, finally, was accident, and people misjudging their opponents and people feeling they didn't dare back down. I mean, think of it sometime like a sort of fight in a schoolyard. You reach a point where you can't back down or you lose face, and so you decide to go ahead. And so I think we have to remember in history, there's accident, there's things like pride, sense of honor, fear of the opponent. And so I think often nations, like people get into fights that they don't really want to be in. And once in, of course, it's very difficult to get out. And so the First World War was not Something I think, that most people in Europe wanted, including those who were their leaders. But enough people were prepared to risk it that it did happen. And so we can't rule out the possibility. I think, at the present, as we see tension spots, we're in the middle at the moment of increasing tension and open fighting in the Middle East. And there are other spots, course, the South China Seas, the Taiwan, the India China border. And so it's not foolish or, you know, imagining things to be worried about conflict spreading at the moment.

[Asma Khalid]

Before we go deeper into this conversation, I think it's worth just making sure we know what we're talking about in terms of the lexicon, the terminology we're using. You are a historian of war. And so, Margaret, what exactly is a. A world war? Is there an agreed upon definition?

[Margaret MacMillan]

I suppose? No, I think we just all use it to describe a war that's not confined to one part of the world. There were still bits of the world that didn't really suffer actual fighting in either the first or Second World War. Latin America didn't see much fighting, and Canada didn't actually see, and the United States didn't see fighting on its territory, but we were engaged overseas. But a world war, I think, just is a fact of a global world, that there are these connections between different parts of the world and very difficult to confine war to a particular area.

[Asma Khalid]

Margaret, we know that you're a historian, not a military analyst, but the context in which we are having this conversation today is the war in the Middle East. And we wanted to talk to you about how this situation could possibly escalate into a broader war, and conversely, how we might avoid it escalating into such a dire world war situation. And so, first, let's talk about scenario one, the path toward World War three. As we are recording with you, there have been missiles, airstrikes, drone strikes, not just in Iran, but also in Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, the uae, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Azerbaijan, occupied West bank and Cyprus. And overall, if we include the United States involvement, we're talking about more than a dozen countries. It is still what many people describe as a regional war. But can you imagine a scenario where it escalates to a bigger war, possibly to a world war?

[Margaret MacMillan]

I think the country that's likely to escalate it is probably Iran or allies of Iran, such as the Houthi in Yemen. And what will happen if they start attacking tankers or naval vessels belonging to global powers? And what will happen if Iran destroys. It's already attacked, I believe One of the desalination plants in the Emirates which

[Asma Khalid]

the Gulf uses, you're saying, for drinking water in many cases, because they don't

[Margaret MacMillan]

have ample supplies of water of their own. And what will happen if Iran decides to go further and simply close the Straits of Hormuz, begin to really choke off, for example, China's oil supplies and gas supplies. And so it has the possibility, I think, of drawing in other powers, and we have to hope it won't happen. China, I think, is reluctant to get drawn into any sort of conflict in the Middle East. It has other things it's concerned about. But let's say, for example, what happens if China thinks, well, this is actually a good time to try and take Taiwan. It won't be a direct result of the conflict in the Middle east, but it will be seen possibly by Chinese thinkers strategist Xi Jinping himself, possibly as an opportunity, a good time for China to make a move on Taiwan, if that's what it wants to do. And so there is always a possibility of conflict spreading outside a region, partly because others outside the region will see opportunities in the conflict because it's engaging people who might stop them from doing what they want.

[Asma Khalid]

So you've studied wars in the past, and so I want to understand from you if there are common ingredients that you have seen in previous wars that you are seeing now that give you concern that this could potentially become a larger conflict.

[Margaret MacMillan]

Well, I think the whole thing about how it's easier to start a war than it is to end it. And I think the French Prime Minister Clemenceau in the First World War said making peace is harder than making war. And I think he was right that once you start a war, once you get the losses, I think people become engaged. And there is often an argument that for the sacrifice that these people that we've already made, we must continue to win the war. And I think that can be a factor. I mean, I think we have to look at the role of emotions and things like pride. You get, leaders don't want to be seen as backing down. Putin, I think, is very much an example of this. I mean, he's clearly made a real mistake in trying to invade Ukraine. This month marks four years since Russia invaded Ukraine. The casualties count is staggering. But he will not admit it. And he keeps on claiming victory, even though the losses keep mounting. With nearly 2 million soldiers on both sides killed, wounded or missing, Russia's military suffering the worst with 1.2 million casualties. And so I think we have to look at the individual Leaders. And we had. At the end of the Second World War, we had Hitler sitting in his bunker in Berlin in the final hours

[Historical Narrator]

of the European war. Hitler prolonged the war to live as long as he could and consigned his country to destruction.

[Margaret MacMillan]

He was prepared to sacrifice every German to see the German people fight on and be destroyed. And when someone said, they don't deserve it, he said, they failed me.

[Historical Narrator]

The Nazi monster died hard and had to be smashed into submission.

[Margaret MacMillan]

You know, we have to look at the role of leadership, human emotions. It's like looking at a very complicated chess game being played on many levels, and which factor is going to be the most important one. But I think in all wars, you see pretty much a sense that we didn't think it would turn out quite this way.

[Asma Khalid]

You said earlier in our conversation that accidents can play often a big role into determining whether wars spiral into just bigger and bigger wars. Can you spell out an example or two from history in which that has happened, even if not into a world war, into a much larger war?

[Margaret MacMillan]

Well, I think the classic is the First World War. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the Archduke probably shouldn't have happened. He went to Bosnia and Herzegovina on the day of the great Serbian national holiday and got himself assassinated in spite of all the warnings. And I would call that an accident, an accident that could have been avoided. And I think what the assassination of Franz Ferdinand did was set a match to a pile of fuel that was already there. And so Austria, Hungary for long had seen Serbia as this poisonous little country on its southern border. And so in Vienna, when they heard about the Archduke, they said, this is our chance. We're going to destroy Serbia. It's quite clear they're behind it. We've got every excuse that we need. Austria Hungary then went to Germany and said, look, we're going to try and really finish Serbia once and for all. We'll invade whatever they said they were going to do. Will you back us? And that's when Germany gave the infamous blank check. Go ahead. Serbia then looked to Russia, its patron, and said, are you with us? And more or less, Russia said, yes. You know, we were not going to let them push you around like this. And at that point, things began to move very fast indeed. The Russians then said to the French, who were their allies, if we go to war with Germany and Austria, Hungary, are you in? And the French said, yes, we have an alliance. The French more or less said to the British, well, what about you? And the British didn't have to go in, but they felt it was a matter of honor. And they also didn't want a continent dominated by Germany. And so the assassination took place on 28 June, 1914. By August 1914, Europe was involved in a major war, and that then spread through the rest of Europe and through other parts of the world. And of course, in 1917, the United States came into it. I mean, I'm simplifying it, but it more or less was a chain reaction that happened. And of course the assumption was that it was going to be a very short war and we should never assume things about war because we don't know how it's going to go.

[Bleacher Report Announcer]

The Bleacher Report app is your destination for sports right now. The NBA is heating up, March Madness is here, and MLB is almost back. Every day there's a new headline, a new highlight, a new moment you've got to see for yourself. That's why I stay locked in with the Bleacher Report app. For me, it's about staying connected to my sports. I can follow the teams I care about, get real time scores, breaking news and highlights all in one place. Download the Bleacher Report app today so you never miss a moment.

[Howie Mandel]

The Global Gaming League is presented by Atlas Earth, the fun cashback app. Hey, it's Howie Mandel and I am inviting you to witness history as me and my How We do it gaming team take on Gilly the King and Wallow 2 sick $7 million gaming in an epic global gaming league video game showdown. Plus a halftime performance by multi platinum artist Travy McCoy. Watch all the action and see who wins and advances to the championship match right [e-mail] that's globalgamingleague.com in partnership with Level Up Expo.

[Bleacher Report Announcer]

The Bleacher Report app is your destination for sports right now. The NBA is heating up, March Madness is here and MLB is almost back. Every day there's a new headline, a new highlight, a new moment you've got to see for yourself. That's why I stay locked in with the Bleacher Report app. For me, it's about staying connected to my sports. I can follow the teams I care about, get real time scores, breaking news and highlights all in one place. Download the Bleacher Report app today so you never miss a moment.

[Asma Khalid]

Margaret, if I can take us back to the Iran war, I want to turn now to the other big alternative scenario and that is the path that takes us away from World War Three. I mean, first off, do you foresee the other major powers, whether we're talking about China, but also Russia, for instance. Do you see them being drawn into this conflict or is that unlikely in your view?

[Margaret MacMillan]

I think the other major powers will be drawn in simply by the fact that they get, especially in the case of China, they get fuel and fertilizer from Iran and so their supplies are being threatened. I doubt if they'll be drawn in militarily. Why would they want to be? I noticed that both Russia and China have been very quiet about the possibility of sending ships, for example, to the Gulf to try and protect tankers. And so I think the way they're being drawn in is simply because of economic factors. And in the case of Russia, they've had a relationship with Iran for some time. So I don't think we will see either of those countries coming in and creating conflict, engaging in a war. But it is quite possible that Russia will redouble its efforts in Ukraine because other powers are distracted. And it's quite possible that China may decide to make a move against Taiwan because, again, other powers are distracted.

[Asma Khalid]

So given where we are in the war at this moment in time in the Middle east, what are some of the ways you could envision this conflict de escalating? If you say that economics might draw China into the conflict in some ways, I've been wondering too. I mean, is the economy not a way in which this crawl entirely de escalate? I mean, I covered the White House for several years here. I sit here in Washington, D.C. and I know that President Trump, for example, does get skittish about the health of the stock markets, the economy. That undoubtedly factors into his thinking.

[Margaret MacMillan]

And I think it is possible that on both sides, I mean, let's take the two main protagonists, the United States, Iran, but also in Israel and in a number of the other Middle Eastern countries, there are those who say this has gone far enough, we can't sustain this and it's causing problems. And of course, in the United States, the president and the administration have to think about the midterms that are coming up and wars tend not to be popular with the American public and rising prices. So this domestic factors are always a consideration in these things. I mean, what we have to hope is that a number of the parties will get together. I mean, key would be the United States and whoever is speaking for Iran speaking to each other. But I think Israel has to be in some ways part of this because Israel has played such a part in the war. And I think a number of the Middle Eastern countries, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, would like some sort of participation. But it may also be that much as it's being reviled and disregarded, the UN can play a role in actually coming in.

[Asma Khalid]

Yeah, you think so? Because that's certainly not the perspective I hear from the Trump administration, who seems to think that the UN is an outdated organization in many ways.

[Margaret MacMillan]

Well, what the United nations, and we all know its weaknesses, what the United nations has done and can still do is provide a forum for discussions. And it has previously come in and monitored ceasefires and it has in previous conflicts helped with reconstruction in post conflict situations. And so I wouldn't write the UN off, but we badly need at the moment is some sort of discussions which will be backed enough by outside other interested parties who want to make this work.

[Asma Khalid]

If you see the economy or domestic politics, the upcoming midterm elections as possible motivations for de escalation, I mean, I understand why President Trump might want to de escalate, but I don't have a clear sense of what are the paths for de escalating from the perspective of the Iranians or from the perspective of the Israelis.

[Margaret MacMillan]

Well, I think with the Israelis, I mean, again, so much depends on Netanyahu, who seems to be really making the running here. And he seems to have as his war aim, which I don't think is any longer an American war aim, toppling the regime in Iran. And I think the United States will have to make it clear to him that they're not going to support that if they want to get some sort of peace. As long as Israel is prepared to keep on bombing Iranian infrastructure and causing damage to that infrastructure, then I don't think there's going to be much hope of peace. But the United States has a lot of leverage that it can exert over Israel. And there are those in Israel, I mean, we've seen it in some of the Israeli press who simply don't support what is going on, who think it's very, very risky indeed. In Iran, I think we were told that there were those who were ready to possibly hand over the enriched uranium, were prepared to hand it over to a third party, possibly Russia. Now, whether they're still prepared to do that is another matter. But there's not going to be any sort of settlement, I think, unless there's some sort of agreement on Iran's capacity to make nuclear weapons. And whether or not they're still willing to do this remains to be seen. But I think there's got to be if we want to end this conflict before it goes on and before it spreads and causes even more misery then we need to see some sort of talking. So it will depend, I think a lot on who's in charge in Iran and what they want. A lot on what's happening inside Israel, but also a lot on the United States. And these are all difficult to gauge, we'll have to see. But I think it's costing them all in their own ways. And it may well be that they're all reaching a conclusion that we're not getting what we thought we were going to get. It's not worth it. I mean, I think both Israel and the United States assumed that the Iranian regime would topple, the Iranians would immediately sue for peace. And we're now seeing that this is not the case. And so it may well be that people on all sides are beginning to think, how do we stop this?

[Asma Khalid]

Are there some examples from history of regional conflicts that involved major powers that could have exploded into a larger war, into a potential world war, but instead were averted? I mean, we talk a lot about the wars that did happen, World War I, World War II, but what about the wars that didn't happen?

[Margaret MacMillan]

Yeah, no, there are always wars that don't explode into wider conflicts. I mean, in Europe in the 19th century, which was by European standards a pretty peaceful century, there were wars promoted by Germany to unify all the German speaking states into what became Germany. And those wars never involved more than two parties. And that I think in one case there were three. But in that case I think you did see wars that were contained and other powers standing aside because they didn't want to get involved. More interesting example is when the accident doesn't turn into war.

[Historical Narrator]

My fellow Americans, I'm coming before you tonight about the Korean airline massacre, the attack by the Soviet union and that's

[Margaret MacMillan]

when one, for example, when the Korean airliner 007 was shot down at the beginning of the 1980s and it was apparently shot down by Russians by mistake. But those in charge in the Soviet Union thought the United States was probably going to attack them for it.

[Historical Narrator]

The Soviet Union has carried on the most massive military build up the world has ever seen. Until they're willing to join the rest of the of the world community, we must maintain the strength to deter their aggression.

[Margaret MacMillan]

And they became convinced and they began to read every sign that the United States produced that the United States was planning an all out nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.

[Historical Narrator]

We know it will be hard to make a nation that rules its own people through force to cease using force against the rest of the world. But we must try. This is not a role we sought.

[Margaret MacMillan]

We and very close to war, closer than we like to think, because the Soviet Union was thinking of how to retaliate. So sometimes an accident can create a situation where both sides are apprehensive and they begin to read what's happening on the other side as clear evidence of what they fear.

[Asma Khalid]

How was that diverted the situation in the 1980s you just described?

[Margaret MacMillan]

There were NATO exercises taking place which the Russians had been told about, the Soviets had been told about, but they persuaded themselves apparently that these were actually preparations for a real attack. And President Reagan and Mr. Satcher, the Prime Minister of Britain, were meant to be taking part in the final bit of the exercises and going into their bunkers just to test that it all worked. And they luckily got word that the Soviets saw this as preparations for a real attack. And so they called off the last stages and Reagan and Thatcher appeared in public and then they talked to the Soviets and said, no, we really didn't mean it and we're not going to attack you.

[Asma Khalid]

So they actually picked up the phone though, in cold.

[Margaret MacMillan]

So I think they did actually directly reassure the Soviets and also through their ambassadors. But the terrifying thing was just how close we came to an all out nuclear war because the Soviets had persuaded themselves they were about to be attacked.

[Asma Khalid]

That's fascinating. It is terrifying though. It's also to me, Margaret, also reassuring that in that moment we were able to avoid that really, really dangerous and terrifying result between the USSR and the United States. Right. Is there a lesson you take away from that USSR example?

[Margaret MacMillan]

I think the example is that diplomacy is very important. You need to know about the other side, you need to know what they're likely to do and you need to be in touch with them and you need to take measures to reassure the other side. And that began to happen a lot in the later stages of the Cold War. Confidence building measures where the Soviets would say to the Americans, to NATO, by the way, we're going to be doing some naval exercises and the NATO forces would say to the Soviets, by the way, we're just going to be practicing. And so they sort of got used to each other. I mean, it was rather like a very tricky relationship where they started out hating each other and then they sort of became like old, not friends, but sort of old foes. And they sort of got used to the frenemies. No, there are lots of examples where sort of people have said, wait a minute, this is getting crazy.

[Asma Khalid]

They understood it was getting too volatile and they needed to bring the temperature down.

[Margaret MacMillan]

And that happened during the Cold War on several occasions. And so what never happened was that the Soviet Union, United States, fought each other directly. And the reason for that was largely, I think, because of nuclear weapons. Because if the two big powers came in, the United States and the Soviet Union with their nuclear arsenals, the real danger was of escalation. And so we had what came to be called mad, mutually assured destruction, the

[Asma Khalid]

idea that nuclear powers would not go to war with each other.

[Margaret MacMillan]

So you held back. Now, we shouldn't get sentimental about that because there were moments when we came very close to it. I think the Cuban Missile Crisis. But I think we did have a sort of stasis and we had those on both sides who said we cannot go to war directly with each other. Didn't mean a lot of people weren't killed. It didn't mean that war didn't cause ghastly things in the course of the Cold War. But they never fought each other directly.

[Asma Khalid]

These two nuclear superpowers, these two nuclear armed superpowers.

[Margaret MacMillan]

And I think we may have to hope for that today. But of course, there are more nuclear powers today.

[Asma Khalid]

Yeah, I mean, that's actually exactly what I wanted to ask you about, which is that after the Second World War, there were these two big theories that developed that sort of suggested we were in this post war order. I mean, one is, as you mentioned, mutually assured destruction, the idea that nuclear powers would not go to war with each other. But the other was capitalist peace theory, the idea that countries that trade with each other wouldn't go to war against each other. How much merit do these theories have today?

[Margaret MacMillan]

Well, this is where history, I think, can be helpful. Britain and Germany were each other's biggest trading partners before the First World War. Did that stop them from going to war? No, again, we have other factors. It's not all about economics. I know there was this whole theory that no countries that have McDonald's will ever go to war with each other. You know, Russia had McDonald's, Ukraine had McDonald's. Look where we are. So I think we shouldn't assume that one factor will keep everyone happy. And there was a lot of talk during the Cold War of how we've moved into a more peaceful world. Well, we hadn't. I mean, there was a war every year somewhere in the world since 1945. Look how many people got killed in the wars in Africa, in the wars in the Middle east, in the wars in Asia. It's civil wars. We still are a violent people and we've seen a lot of violence since 1945. What we did is to avoid were the massive wars that we saw in the first and Second World Wars.

[Asma Khalid]

I realize that we're having this conversation in the context of Iran, because that's when I began hearing questions about are we headed towards a potential World War iii, at least in the American context. But I realized perhaps this view looks differently if you're sitting in Europe. Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, recently told my colleague Jeremy Bowen at the BBC, I

[Margaret MacMillan]

believe that Putin has already started it,

[Asma Khalid]

that Russia's Vladimir Putin has already started World War 3.

[Margaret MacMillan]

The question is how much territory he will be able to seize and how to stop him.

[Asma Khalid]

And so that makes me wonder, have we already begun a descent into a sort of global war and not realized it?

[Margaret MacMillan]

I hope not. And I think. I'm not saying we should be foolishly optimistic, but if we throw up our hands and say, with nothing we can do, it's all going to happen, that's very dangerous as well. I think we have to keep on struggling against that, and we have to keep on hoping it won't happen. Putin is more and more isolated. His pride now is involved in the Ukraine war. He can't back down, but he's not winning, and I don't see how he can win, actually. I think it's important that it is not just Ukraine's war, it's Europe's war. And it's a war of those who want peace, and it's a war of those who want to resist aggression. But I don't think that is the same as World War 3.

[Asma Khalid]

You've written a lot about how we in the west since World War II sometimes act as though we kind of invented our way out of war. And yet you've also suggested that that's an unwise way to think and operate. Can you explain why?

[Margaret MacMillan]

The period from 1945 to the 1990s is very short in terms of the history of Europe or the history of the world? And I think we became smug. I think we felt we didn't do war anymore. That was something that those people somewhere else did. And I think it's very much the same sort of feeling that a lot of Europeans had before the First World War. They were no longer barbaric. They were civilized. I mean, this is a sort of language they used to. And I think it was a mistake. I think we don't realize just how present war is, and we're not perhaps aware enough, and we should be aware that peace is something that doesn't just happen. It has to be maintained. And we have to think about how we maintain it. And you know, we haven't wanted, and I speak as a Canadian, and we are certainly guilty of this. We haven't wanted to spend on defensive weapons or any sorts of weapons because the public's got other things, things that one's money spent on. But if we don't keep our defenses up, then we are going to be more vulnerable. And I think we're all realizing this now. I mean, NATO has tended to assume that the United States will look after everything, and now they're realizing that they have got to look after some things themselves.

[Asma Khalid]

Well, Margaret, thanks so much for sharing your knowledge with us. We really appreciate it.

[Margaret MacMillan]

Thank you very much for all your rather difficult questions. Foreign.

[Asma Khalid]

That was Margaret McMillan, emeritus professor of International History at the University of Oxford. By the way, if you enjoyed our show today, then please leave us a rating and review. It really helps other folks find us. Today's show was produced by Chris Benderev and Lucy Pol. It was mixed by Travis Evans. Our executive producer was James Shield. Our digital producer is Matt Pintus. Our senior news editor is China Collins. And I'm Asma Khalid. Thanks as always for listening and we'll talk to you again tomorrow.

[Howie Mandel]

The Global Gaming League is presented by Atlas Earth, the fun cashback app. Hey, it's Howie Mandel and I am inviting you to witness history as me and my How We do it gaming team take on Gilly The King and Wallow 2 6, $7 million gaming in an epic global gaming league video game showdown. Plus a halftime performance by multi platinum artist Travy McCoy. Watch all the action and see who wins and advances to the championship match right [e-mail] that's globalgamingleague.com in partnership with Level Up Expo.