Overview:
As global conflicts dominate headlines and public anxiety grows, the question of whether the world is heading toward World War III feels increasingly urgent. In this opinion piece, Presence News contributors Susmita Majumder, William Barber, and Kasdyn Click offer three distinct perspectives rooted in lived experience, historical awareness, and media observation. Rather than predicting catastrophe, the article explores how global tensions are felt locally, how leadership shapes escalation, and why uncertainty does not always equal inevitability.
Intro: Are We Heading Toward World War III?
The question feels heavy because it no longer sounds hypothetical.
In recent months, global headlines have been dominated by war, military escalation, economic strain, and deepening political divisions. Conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East continue with no clear resolution, major powers are testing one another diplomatically and militarily, and civilians around the world are feeling the ripple effects through rising costs, displacement, and uncertainty.
At the same time, the public conversation has grown louder — and more polarized. Social media accelerates fear, governments speak in strategic language that often obscures human consequences, and many people are left wondering how close the world truly is to a broader global conflict.
Rather than predicting outcomes or amplifying panic, Presence News asked a simpler but more grounded question: What are we actually seeing, feeling, and learning right now — at the local level, through lived experience, and through careful observation?
To explore that question, three Presence News contributors — Susmita Majumder, William Barber, and Kasdyn Click — offer their perspectives. Each reflects on global tensions through a different lens: community impact, historical context, media framing, and personal observation. Together, these perspectives aim not to declare certainty, but to document the moment we are living in — honestly, thoughtfully, and without sensationalism.
To provide broader context, we reference one external analysis from The Week, selected for its measured tone and relative lack of partisan framing.
With geopolitical tensions erupting from the Middle East to Europe and Asia, many around the world are asking the same question: Are we heading toward World War III? Recent reporting in The Week highlights warnings from Iran’s Supreme Leader that any U.S. attack could spark a “regional war,” while Israel’s military has signaled it could support U.S. strikes — actions that analysts say could fuel broader confrontation.
At home in Mississippi, I’ve heard just as many conflicting perspectives as those voiced internationally. Some here fear that what they see as a weakening of democratic checks and balances could destabilize global alliances. Others argue that U.S. leadership is actually keeping global rivalries in check, even if party loyalty shapes how they interpret those actions.
However, speculation and inevitability are two different words. The idea of a World War III-type conflict on a world stage would require an active alliance effort, much like in the past. This is precisely something most countries would not wish to see in the present day, given the consequences all nations have endured as a product of world wars in the 20th century. Although regional conflicts will likely continue, as will the proxy wars, I still don’t see a world war, yet instead see a world dealing with tension, tension, and tension.
Whether or not another World War III is ever actually fought, the fact that it is now being discussed among analysts, politicians, and the general populace speaks to the state of the current world climate that is apparently growing more and more doubtful of diplomacy and leadership.
Interest in the Ukraine-Russia war in New Jersey, a state that has gone reliably Democratic in recent elections, seems to be as high as it has ever been. Public support for Ukraine is visible highly, from widespread discussion to the display of Ukrainian flags. Many people have expressed that the international leaders should do better to prevent the situation from getting worse, with critics again accusing the previous leadership, particularly the U.S. government, of failing to achieve any diplomatic breakthrough.
This discomfort, however, is not limited to America. According to reports referenced by The Week media publication, conflicts of the future have a 30-35 percent chance of occurring in the next ten years, a notion that is speculative but one that has persisted for long periods. A 2019 survey indicated that close to two-thirds of Americans believed that a world war could happen in the next decade, a sentiment that has been worsened by recent happenings in Ukraine and the emerging tensions between America and China.
Elsewhere, geopolitical strain persists. In India, some view U.S. pressure related to the Russian oil issue as destabilizing, while in the Middle East, the concerns being harbored regarding the Iranian regional influence continue to cause more alarm. The fear of a third world war may not be an indication of its inevitability, but it is certainly an indication of an international system under strain.
Within the next two to three years, I don’t think so — or at least, I hope not.
There’s a long-standing saying that war stimulates economies. While that idea is often repeated, it’s difficult to verify cleanly. What is observable, historically, is that large conflicts tend to involve the same industrial players: manufacturers of weapons, vehicles, logistics, and financing that operate across borders and markets. Wars are complex systems, and funding, supply chains, and equipment often change hands in ways that are not always obvious to the public.
A widely circulated example that stuck with me involved a U.S. contractor whose former pickup truck later appeared overseas in a conflict zone, modified for military use. The story gained attention because the original business phone number was still visible on the vehicle, prompting calls back to the owner. Whether anecdotal or symbolic, moments like that illustrate how interconnected global supply chains can become once equipment leaves civilian hands.
Looking back at the previous U.S. administration under President Joe Biden, the approach to global conflict often appeared cautious and diplomatic. When tensions arose, the emphasis tended to be on de-escalation, negotiation, and financial support rather than direct confrontation.
Under the current administration, the tone feels different. President Donald Trump projects a more force-forward posture and frequently emphasizes support for military personnel, law enforcement, and first responders. While his rhetoric is often aggressive, I don’t believe that necessarily translates into a desire for large-scale war. In fact, much of his political base includes veterans and service members — something I observed firsthand while attending one campaign event, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where a significant portion of the crowd appeared to be former or active military.
Presidents are deeply aware of the legacies they leave behind. While the current administration has launched numerous initiatives and made ambitious promises, it’s fair to say that the scope of those efforts may prove difficult to fully resolve within a single term. At the same time, internal tensions within the United States — from protests to polarized political movements — suggest that domestic stability is just as pressing a concern as foreign conflict. In some ways, these divisions echo past periods of unrest, when national focus turned inward rather than outward.
As the next election cycle approaches, attention will likely shift toward consolidating unfinished projects and shaping historical narratives. What comes after will depend heavily on who follows — their personal experiences, international exposure, values, and priorities. Leadership matters not just in moments of war, but in the quieter decisions that determine whether escalation is avoided altogether.
Conclusion: Uncertainty Is Not the Same as Inevitability
The idea of a third world war carries immense emotional weight, and for good reason. History reminds us how quickly regional conflicts can spiral when diplomacy fails and fear replaces dialogue. Yet history also shows that moments of tension do not always lead to catastrophe — especially when societies remain engaged, informed, and grounded in reality rather than rhetoric.
What emerges from these three perspectives is not a single answer, but a shared observation: people feel the strain of global instability in very real, local ways. Through rising anxiety, fractured trust in institutions, economic pressure, and an overwhelming stream of information, uncertainty has become part of daily life. That uncertainty alone can shape behavior, politics, and public discourse — sometimes as powerfully as conflict itself.
Still, uncertainty is not inevitability.
The question may not be whether the world is heading toward World War III, but whether leaders, institutions, media, and citizens are willing to slow escalation, resist sensationalism, and remain accountable to facts and human consequences. History is shaped not only by decisions made at the highest levels, but by how societies respond to fear — with panic, or with clarity.
Presence News will continue to document these moments as they unfold, prioritizing perspective over prediction, and context over clicks. Because in times like these, understanding where we stand may matter just as much as speculating about where we’re headed.
More at Presence News:
