In times of war, alongside military operations, a second, unseen yet equally critical conflict is always unfolding: the war of propaganda, disinformation, and, in today’s era, fake news. Images, information, leaks, and even deliberate exaggerations become tools of influence and perception-shaping. For this reason, it is both premature and dangerous to speak of winners and losers while the conflict is still ongoing—especially when, as in the case of the war involving Iran, the beginning appears to have been planned, but not the end.
This is, in fact, the most alarming aspect of the current crisis. It is not merely another regional flare-up in the Middle East. Its repercussions have already extended beyond the region’s geographical boundaries and are taking on a global dimension. What is at stake is not only energy security, with oil and natural gas passing through the Strait of Hormuz. Food security is also at risk, as a significant portion of raw materials and products linked to global agricultural production and the fertilizer market transit through the same route. If this flow is disrupted or restricted, the consequences will not be merely economic—they will also be social and political, triggering chain reactions in many countries, particularly the most vulnerable.
At the same time, the assumption that a deeply rooted regime such as Iran’s can collapse simply through military strikes against its leadership is proving naïve. History has shown that authoritarian yet firmly established systems of power are not mechanically overthrown by external interventions. On the contrary, external pressure often consolidates society around the ruling authority, strengthening precisely what it is intended to weaken.
This is a lesson that has already come at a high cost in the Middle East. The experience of the Arab Spring demonstrated that the hasty or uncritical pursuit of regime change, without a plan for the day after, does not necessarily lead to democracy and stability. On the contrary, in many cases it resulted in institutional vacuums, destabilization, asymmetric threats, terrorism, and new waves of migration. This is why far greater strategic prudence is required today when dealing with those who believe that the solution lies simply in the سقوط of a regime.
If, as rumored, ground operations against Iran ultimately begin, escalation will be rapid and the consequences severe, with a risk of the conflict widening and producing unpredictable effects on both regional and global stability. In such a scenario, the crisis would enter a new and far more dangerous phase, where the margins for control would shrink dramatically and the likelihood of a broader conflagration would increase sharply.
Europe, unfortunately, does not appear ready today to assume the role that corresponds to it. It remains divided, without a unified foreign policy or a common strategy toward a crisis that directly concerns it. And yet, this is precisely the moment when it should have taken the initiative for mediation. Because the only realistic way out is not the expansion of war, but a return to diplomacy.
Greece, within this unstable environment, must maintain a clear and responsible stance: vigilance without involvement, strong defense without aggression, and a firm commitment to international law and stability. Because in a world undergoing violent transformation, composure, national seriousness, and diplomatic clarity are forms of power.