Judging by the headlines surrounding the Iran war, there's a fear that the West will enter the war and we could end up in a third world war. However, when one examines the international system from an economic perspective, another conclusion emerges: a large-scale, protracted war is profoundly irrational for almost all the actors involved.
The main reason is global economic interdependence. A century ago, as Europe marched toward the First World War, the world was far less integrated. Economies were more self-sufficient, international trade was much less important, there were many more currencies, and digital and technological interdependence, as well as that of capital markets, did not exist.
Today, the exact opposite is happening. Global GDP is projected to grow by around 3.2% in 2025 and 3.3% in 2026. But more significant is its distribution: virtually all major regions of the world continue to grow. The United States, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America are all maintaining positive growth rates. Countries experiencing economic contractions represent less than 0.5% of global GDP. In other words, more than 99.5% of the global economy continues to expand.
But what's more, in much of the world, exports account for between 20% and 35% of GDP. Global trade isn't just a complement to growth; it's one of its main drivers. No country can survive without international trade.
Therefore, when we observe crises like the one in Iran, it is important to analyze the real objectives of the actors involved. The dominant logic is not territorial conquest or protracted wars, typical of the 20th century. The objective is usually to contain specific risks (in this case, Iran's nuclear development) without provoking an uncontrolled regional conflict.
In this world we live in, where supply chains cross continents, where energy flows through strategic straits, and where trade sustains the growth of most economies, total war is of no interest to anyone.
This does not mean the risk of conflict has disappeared. Miscalculations, military incidents, and escalating dynamics still exist. And history shows that rationality does not always govern international politics.
Globalization hasn't eliminated these risks, but it has multiplied the incentives to avoid them. Therefore, in the face of geopolitical noise, it's worth remembering a basic principle of political economy: when everyone depends on everyone else, breaking the system ceases to be a rational option.
In the 21st century, more than ever, the common interest remains to keep the board upright.
Nobody wants to break the deck.
