Fears Rise After US–Israel Strikes on Iran: Which Countries Are Considered Safest if Global War Erupts?
The joint U.S.–Israeli strikes on Iran, which reportedly began on Saturday (28 February), have intensified fears of wider regional escalation and potential global economic fallout. Reactions worldwide have ranged from celebration in some political circles to strong condemnation elsewhere. As tensions rise, many are asking a difficult question: if a third world war were to break out, where would the safest places be?
Security analysts often point to three main factors when assessing relative safety: political neutrality, low militarisation, and geographic isolation. The Institute for Economics & Peace, which publishes the annual Global Peace Index, consistently finds that the most peaceful nations tend to share strong institutions, limited involvement in conflict, and stable societies. Still, experts caution that in a true global war — particularly one involving nuclear weapons — no country would be entirely untouched.
Antarctica
Antarctica is often cited as the most remote location on Earth. With no permanent civilian population and only scientific research stations, it has no strategic military value. Its extreme isolation and harsh climate make it unlikely to be a direct target in a major conflict. However, survival there would present enormous logistical challenges.
Iceland
Iceland has ranked first on the Global Peace Index for 17 consecutive years. It has no standing army, minimal militarisation, and decades of political stability. Analysts frequently highlight its small population and cohesive society as strengths. Its geographic isolation in the North Atlantic further reduces its likelihood of becoming a central battlefield.
New Zealand
New Zealand is regularly mentioned in discussions of global resilience. Located far from major power blocs, it ranks highly on peace and stability indices. Commenting on the The Diary of a CEO, investigative journalist Annie Jacobsen suggested that in a full-scale nuclear scenario, New Zealand and neighboring Australia might be among the least directly affected due to their geography and agricultural capacity.
Tuvalu
Tuvalu, a tiny Pacific island state, has minimal geopolitical significance. Its nearest large neighbors are thousands of kilometers away. With virtually no military infrastructure, it is unlikely to be a priority target in a global conflict scenario.
Argentina
Argentina is frequently highlighted by survival analysts due to its vast landmass, agricultural strength, and relative distance from likely theaters of war. A 2022 study in the journal Nature Food suggested Argentina’s crop resilience and low population density could help it withstand the agricultural disruption associated with nuclear winter conditions.
Switzerland
Switzerland has a long-standing policy of neutrality and robust civil defense infrastructure. It legally requires nuclear shelters in residential buildings and maintains extensive preparedness systems. However, its proximity to densely populated European regions could still expose it to indirect risks in a continental conflict.
Indonesia and Bhutan
Indonesia maintains a non-aligned foreign policy and spans thousands of islands, making it less concentrated as a strategic target. Meanwhile, Bhutan, historically neutral and geographically mountainous, is often included in speculative safe-haven lists due to its low international profile.
Chile, Fiji, and South Africa
Chile is noted for its long coastline, stable infrastructure, and distance from major rival powers. Fiji, remote and agriculturally viable, also appears in many discussions of relative safety. South Africa is sometimes included due to its developed infrastructure and resource base, though its geopolitical ties would still factor into risk assessments.
Was the Recent Earthquake in Iran a Nuclear Test?
Amid ongoing strikes, a 4.3 magnitude earthquake struck the Gerash region in southern Iran in the early hours of Tuesday (3 March). Social media speculation quickly suggested the tremor might have been linked to a covert nuclear weapons test.
However, experts say that explanation is highly unlikely. Southern Iran lies along the Zagros fold-and-thrust belt, where the Arabian and Eurasian tectonic plates meet — a region known for frequent seismic activity. Similar speculation followed a 2024 earthquake in northern Iran, which was later determined to be entirely natural.
Seismologists note that underground nuclear tests produce distinct seismic signatures that differ from natural earthquakes. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization has previously confirmed that tremors in the region matched known geological patterns rather than weapons testing.
A Relative Concept of Safety
While certain countries may appear safer on paper due to geography, neutrality, or agricultural resilience, experts consistently emphasize that “safe” is a relative term. In a truly global conflict — especially one involving nuclear exchange — economic disruption, climate effects, and supply chain breakdowns would likely affect nearly every region in some way.
For now, these assessments remain hypothetical. But as geopolitical tensions evolve, the conversation reflects a broader public anxiety: in an interconnected world, even distant events can feel uncomfortably close to home.
Leave a Reply