Moments of escalation in the Middle East revive an old, unsettling calculation: not who might win a global war, but who might avoid the worst of it. Analysts sift through data on neutrality, militarisation, and geography, pointing to countries like Iceland, New Zealand, Switzerland, Bhutan, Chile, Argentina, or remote Pacific islands as relatively less exposed in the first, chaotic phase of a wider conflict. Their distance from power blocs, modest armed forces, and limited strategic value can, for a time, keep them off target lists.

Yet the same experts insist this is a grim kind of comfort. In a world bound together by trade, finance, food systems, and digital networks, even the most remote havens would feel the shock waves of war through shortages, financial turmoil, displaced populations, or, in a nuclear exchange, climate and agricultural collapse. The sobering conclusion is that the only true “safe zone” is one created before the shooting starts: through diplomacy, restraint, and institutions strong enough to pull rivals back from the edge.