From Conflict to Catalyst

Iran, Israel, Rare Earths, and the Global Path to Peace

Introduction

The long-standing Iran–Israel conflict has consistently served as a fault line in Middle Eastern geopolitics, marked by ideological hostility, nuclear brinkmanship, and proxy warfare. Yet in 2025, that chronic tension has exploded into a crisis of global consequence. What was once a regional powder keg has ignited a complex network of strategic rivalries, economic warfare, and emerging technological competition. As Iranian missiles fall near Israeli cities and Israeli airstrikes penetrate Iranian territory, the world finds itself on the edge, not only of another regional war but potentially a global conflagration.

But beneath the headlines of airstrikes and cyberattacks, another development is quietly shifting the global balance of power: Iran’s entry into the rare earth elements (REE) economy. On April 20, 2025, Tehran unveiled its first domestically engineered monazite processing facility, an achievement that places the Islamic Republic squarely into one of the most strategic value chains of the 21st century. Constructed and operated entirely by Iranian engineers, this facility marks more than a technological milestone, it represents a new form of leverage in a world increasingly defined by critical mineral access.

Rare earth elements are indispensable to the technologies that power modern economies and militaries. From precision-guided missiles and electric vehicles to AI supercomputers and satellite arrays, REEs are the atomic building blocks of both innovation and warfare. Until now, China controlled over 80% of global processing capacity. But with Beijing restricting exports of heavy REEs and high-performance magnets in retaliation to new U.S. tariffs under President Trump’s second term, the global market has become brittle, politicized, and alarmingly exposed.

Into this vacuum steps Iran, long isolated by sanctions, now repositioning itself as an emergent supplier of the very materials shaping the future of clean energy, advanced manufacturing, and defense. This move is neither symbolic nor incidental. It represents a strategic inflection point, an opening for Iran to break out of economic marginalization, and a challenge to the existing mineral hegemony long dominated by Western-aligned blocs.

The implications are profound. Iran’s rare earth breakthrough comes amid a broader global fragmentation. The G7, representing traditional Western powers, and BRICS, the leading coalition of the Global South, are no longer mere trade or diplomatic bodies, they are competing systems of political legitimacy, financial architecture, and technological ecosystems. And their battle is playing out not just in boardrooms or summits, but on the battlefields of Gaza, the sanctions regimes of the Strait of Hormuz, and the dusty mining towns of Yazd and Kerman.

This moment is not just about weapons and diplomacy, it is about the anatomy of power in a world transitioning away from fossil fuels and into a mineral-driven digital-industrial era. The next decade will not be defined solely by who builds the most missiles or controls the most territory, it will be defined by who secures the inputs of the future: cobalt, lithium, graphite, and especially rare earth elements.

This article examines the Iran–Israel conflict through this emerging lens. It explores how a regional war is entangled in global supply chain disruptions, technological sovereignty, and the shifting tectonics of energy geopolitics. It details how Iran’s strategic mineral ambitions have converged with the rare earth embargoes of China, the retaliatory trade policies of the United States, and the supply diversification efforts of Europe, Japan, and India.

More importantly, it outlines five potential diplomatic and structural solutions to avert what could become the largest geopolitical conflagration since World War II.

In a world already contending with 114 active conflicts, only 39 of which are officially recognized, the stakes could not be higher. Iran’s industrial pivot may be the spark, but global inaction will be the fuel.

What we need now is clarity, cooperation, and courage. Because what lies ahead is not just a crisis of war, but a test of how we govern the future of strategic resources, and whether peace can still be mined from pressure.

Section I: Iran-Israel – A Conflict on the Brink

Historical Context

Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran has positioned itself as the ideological adversary of Israel. The revolution marked the fall of the pro-Western Shah and the rise of an Islamic theocracy led by Ayatollah Khomeini, which fundamentally altered Iran’s foreign policy orientation. With anti-Zionism codified into its political DNA, Iran has consistently challenged Israel’s legitimacy, opposed normalization with Arab states, and championed the Palestinian cause through financial, political, and military support.

In contrast, Israel views Iran’s ambitions, especially its nuclear program and ballistic missile development, as existential threats. This is compounded by Tehran’s sustained support for groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and various militias across Syria and Iraq. These groups, often armed and trained by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), have conducted asymmetric warfare targeting Israeli civilians, infrastructure, and military assets.

The rivalry has played out through a complex web of proxy conflicts across the region. In Syria, Iran has propped up the Assad regime, while Israel has conducted hundreds of airstrikes targeting Iranian supply lines. In Lebanon, Hezbollah’s arsenal has grown to include over 100,000 rockets, many aimed at northern Israel. In Iraq, IRGC-linked militias have attacked U.S. and Israeli interests alike. Tensions have also spilled into the cyber realm, with both nations conducting sophisticated cyberattacks, most notably the Stuxnet virus, which targeted Iran’s nuclear centrifuges and is widely attributed to Israeli and U.S. intelligence.

Yet the events of 2025 represent a far more direct confrontation than previous years. The recent Israeli strikes on military targets in Esfahan, deep within Iranian territory, marked a bold escalation. These strikes reportedly aimed at missile production facilities and command centers, causing significant infrastructure damage. Tehran’s response was swift and fierce: a wave of drones and precision-guided missiles launched at Israeli military installations, some of which landed near populated areas, including civilian hospitals and schools in Haifa and southern Tel Aviv.

The exchanges did not stop at military targets. Civilian airports were shut down, the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange temporarily suspended trading, and air raid sirens became a daily occurrence for Israeli citizens. In Iran, retaliatory Israeli cyberattacks caused disruptions to banking systems and power outages in major cities like Shiraz and Tabriz. As fears of full-scale war mounted, citizens in both countries faced mass displacement. UN reports estimate that over 180,000 people have been forced to flee border areas, with international airlines canceling flights and oil prices surging past $120 per barrel.

The international community has responded with increasing alarm. While the United Nations Security Council has called for restraint, permanent members have been unable to agree on a unified resolution. The United States has reiterated its support for Israel’s right to self-defense, while China and Russia have urged both sides to de-escalate and warned against unilateral military actions.

Both nations have engaged in acts considered violations of sovereignty and international law. Israel’s cross-border airstrikes without Security Council authorization and Iran’s direct missile launches against civilian infrastructure both breach core principles of the UN Charter. Civilian populations are now bearing the brunt of geopolitical posturing. Psychological trauma, especially among children and families, is mounting. Mental health services in Tel Aviv report a 400% increase in PTSD cases. Iranian hospitals near conflict zones face medicine shortages due to international sanctions, compounded by the physical and emotional toll of war.

With both states signaling readiness for further escalation, and with neither side showing signs of backing down, the Iran-Israel conflict now stands as one of the most dangerous confrontations of the post-Cold War era.

Section II: Rare Earths and the Great Resource War

The Trump Tariffs and China’s Response

In 2018, then-U.S. President Donald J. Trump launched a bold and controversial trade offensive against the People’s Republic of China. Framing his policies around national security and American manufacturing revival, he began with sweeping tariffs on steel (25%) and aluminum (10%). These early moves targeted Chinese overcapacity but quickly expanded into a broader confrontation.

By 2019, the tariff campaign had morphed into a full-scale trade war. More than $550 billion in Chinese goods were subject to tariffs by the United States, covering consumer electronics, industrial machinery, semiconductors, solar panels, and medical equipment. China retaliated with duties on American agricultural products, liquefied natural gas, and vehicles, creating turmoil in global supply chains.

Despite several temporary truces, the geopolitical rivalry continued to deepen. The Biden administration maintained many of the tariffs but added diplomatic pressure regarding human rights, semiconductors, and cybersecurity. However, with Trump’s re-election in late 2024, his administration moved swiftly to escalate economic hostilities. On April 2, 2025, the U.S. Trade Representative’s office announced a new wave of tariffs on Chinese high-value exports, particularly in advanced electronics, clean energy technologies, solar wafers, lithium-ion batteries, rare earth permanent magnets, and artificial intelligence systems.

The new tariffs, ranging from 25% to 55%, were designed not merely to curb imports but to force the repatriation of key strategic manufacturing sectors. Trump described it as “a final blow to China’s chokehold on American innovation.” Predictably, Beijing retaliated within days.

China’s counterpunch came in the form of rare earth export restrictions, targeting the lifeblood of modern technology. On April 10, 2025, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology jointly imposed a formal export ban on six heavy rare earth metals: dysprosium, terbium, holmium, erbium, thulium, and lutetium. These are all critical components in the manufacturing of high-performance magnets, which are indispensable in electric vehicles (EVs), missile guidance systems, radar arrays, advanced robotics, and next-generation AI data centers.

Additionally, China restricted exports of neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) magnets, used in over 90% of EV motors worldwide, and samarium-cobalt magnets essential for aerospace and military defense systems. Nearly all of these magnets are refined in China, giving Beijing disproportionate control over the global market.

The policy shift sent shockwaves through global commodity and technology markets. Within a week:

• Rare earth spot prices surged by 230% for dysprosium and 170% for neodymium.

  • Defense contractors in the U.S., EU, and Japan reported looming shortages.

  • Tech giants like Apple, NVIDIA, and Tesla scrambled to assess supply chain disruptions.

  • The NASDAQ Technology Index experienced its steepest drop since 2022.

What made the move particularly disruptive was China’s switch from informal quotas to total licensing bans, with less than 25% of export applications receiving approval. Even longstanding buyers faced rejections, and many shipments already in transit were returned or seized at port.

Beyond economic consequences, the move sent a powerful political message. It demonstrated China’s willingness to weaponize its dominance in rare earth elements (it controls approximately 60% of global production and over 80% of refining capacity) as a form of counter-sanctions and economic deterrence.

While Beijing justified the restrictions under the guise of “national security and environmental protection,” many analysts interpreted the decision as a geoeconomic maneuver aimed at pressuring Washington and weakening its technological alliances, particularly with Japan, South Korea, and the EU.

This escalation exposed a major vulnerability in Western economies, an overdependence on a single country for indispensable materials. It also opened a strategic void, one that Iran, unexpectedly, moved to fill.

Section III: G7 and BRICS—Diverging Worlds, Converging Interests

G7 Position

The Group of Seven (G7), comprising the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan, continues to operate as a political and economic bloc representing the established liberal international order. Throughout the Iran-Israel crisis of 2025, the G7 has largely echoed Israel’s framing of the conflict, condemning Iranian missile attacks and reasserting Tel Aviv’s right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

During the June 2025 G7 summit held in Montreal, the bloc released a unified statement calling for immediate de-escalation while affirming its unflinching support for Israel’s security. Behind closed doors, however, the summit focused more intensively on energy security, semiconductors, and the rare earth mineral crisis triggered by China’s export bans and Iran’s unexpected entry into the field.

In response, the G7 nations have accelerated efforts to diversify and secure their critical mineral supply chains:

• The United States has pledged over $3 billion in subsidies for new rare earth refining facilities in Texas and Wyoming, partnering with defense contractors and private sector firms like MP Materials and Lynas USA.

  • Japan has inked long-term contracts with Australia and Vietnam, seeking alternatives to China through joint ventures that guarantee stable magnet supply chains for its electronics and automotive industries.

  • The European Union has enacted the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), which mandates that no more than 65% of strategic minerals can come from a single source by 2030. To that end, the EU is co-financing mineral exploration projects in Africa and South America.

The emergence of Iran as a potential rare earth supplier presents a strategic dilemma. On one hand, G7 sanctions and political narratives have long framed Iran as a pariah. On the other, Tehran’s growing capacity in REE processing, especially given its strategic partnerships with BRICS, may render outright isolation impractical. Diplomats across Berlin, Brussels, and Ottawa are quietly exploring “conditional engagement” models that would trade gradual sanctions relief for Iran’s adherence to international export standards and ESG compliance in mining.

Meanwhile, intelligence assessments from G7 defense ministries are increasingly concerned with the pattern of global resource competition turning into proxy conflict, a theme evident across dozens of current wars around the globe.

Global Conflict Landscape: Proxy Wars and Economic Rivalries

As of mid-2025, there are approximately 114 active armed conflicts worldwide, yet only 39 are officially recognized by the United Nations or the Uppsala Conflict Data Program. The remaining conflicts, ranging from low-intensity insurgencies to covert hybrid warfare, are often intrastate in nature but heavily influenced by foreign powers. These include conflicts in places like Yemen, Sudan, the Sahel, Venezuela, Myanmar, and even digital and economic “gray zone” hostilities in cyberspace and the Arctic.

A growing share of these intrastate conflicts are now proxy theaters for G7-BRICS competition. At the heart of the struggle is not just military or ideological dominance, but access to critical minerals, logistics chokepoints, energy corridors, and digital infrastructure. In resource-rich but institutionally weak regions, such as parts of Central Asia, East Africa, and Latin America, local grievances are exploited by larger powers who back opposing factions in exchange for mining rights, port control, or exclusive trade deals.

This “geoeconomic warfare” strategy is neither new nor accidental. The Cold War may have ended, but its successor is a 21st-century contest of connectivity and control, fought not just with tanks, but with tariffs, technology embargoes, supply chain realignments, and currency swaps.

The Iran-Israel confrontation, when viewed through this broader lens, is just one more node in a complex global struggle over economic architecture and strategic resources. Iran’s newfound REE capabilities are not simply a domestic triumph; they represent a potential shift in who controls the foundational inputs of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

BRICS Response

BRICS, originally comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, has undergone a transformational expansion. Now including Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, and Argentina, the bloc is no longer a loose coalition but an emerging counterbalance to G7 hegemony.

Within the BRICS framework, Iran has been welcomed not merely as a political ally but as a strategic partner in critical minerals and energy. China has remained diplomatically restrained in condemning Israeli strikes, instead positioning itself as a neutral mediator. However, its material support for Tehran’s industrialization is clear:

• Chinese firms have provided technical guidance to Iran’s monazite separation plant.

  • A trilateral agreement between Russia, India, and Iran is being negotiated to create a rare earth supply corridor connecting the Chabahar Port to Mumbai and Moscow.

  • South Africa, with deep REE reserves of its own, has extended invitations to Iran for co-development under the BRICS Clean Energy Pact, a new initiative promoting green industrialization within member states.

Russia, for its part, has floated the idea of creating a BRICS Strategic Minerals Exchange (BSME), a commodities platform that could settle trades in local currencies like the yuan, rupee, ruble, and rial, bypassing the U.S. dollar and undercutting G7 financial influence.

Iran’s growing influence in the rare earth economy is being celebrated across the Global South as a symbol of post-colonial economic empowerment. Commentaries in Al Jazeera, RT, and CGTN frame Iran’s industrial gains as a rejection of Western-imposed economic dependency. At the same time, Tehran’s integration into BRICS allows it to hedge against future sanctions, opening pathways to direct trade with over 40% of the world’s population.

Thus, Iran’s mineral development is no longer just a domestic initiative, it is a strategic inflection point in the global rebalancing of power, marking a pivot away from Western unipolarity toward a multipolar world defined by resource sovereignty, south-south cooperation, and industrial autonomy.

Section IV: The Road to World War III?

Escalation Scenarios

The Iran-Israel conflict is no longer confined to a regional flashpoint, it has become a potential ignition point for a global war with systemic consequences. As geopolitical, military, and economic tensions escalate in parallel, multiple trajectories could propel the world toward a full-scale military conflagration. Several high-risk scenarios are now within the realm of possibility:

1. A Full-Scale Israeli Strike on Iranian Nuclear Facilities
The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have long maintained the capability to conduct deep-penetration airstrikes using F-35 stealth fighters, bunker-busting munitions, and advanced surveillance technologies. Should Israel unilaterally strike Iran’s hardened nuclear facilities in Natanz, Fordow, or Arak, especially now that Iran is reportedly enriching uranium beyond 90%, Tehran would almost certainly retaliate. This could trigger missile barrages into Tel Aviv, Haifa, and even Eilat. Hezbollah in Lebanon and IRGC militias in Syria and Iraq could simultaneously open additional fronts, overwhelming Israeli defense systems.

Such a scenario would not only engulf the entire Middle East but could rapidly draw in external powers. Russia and China, while not explicitly defensive allies of Iran, could offer air defense systems, logistics support, or proxy mobilization. Turkey and Egypt may be forced to choose sides, while the Gulf states risk becoming battlegrounds by proximity.

2. Iran Closes the Strait of Hormuz
In retaliation for direct attacks or crippling sanctions, Iran could attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz—the chokepoint through which over 20% of global oil and 30% of LNG shipments pass daily. Iran has rehearsed this scenario for decades, with anti-ship missiles, fast-attack boats, sea mines, and naval drones deployed across its coastline. Closure of the strait, even for 72 hours, could spike oil prices above $200/barrel and ignite global panic.

The U.S. Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, would be compelled to intervene. Direct naval clashes would ensue, increasing the likelihood of an incident involving NATO members. Simultaneously, oil-dependent economies, especially in Asia, would suffer supply shocks, leading to possible currency devaluations and cascading economic instability.

3. U.S. and NATO Involvement, Multipolar War with BRICS
A prolonged conflict with growing civilian casualties or the use of chemical or nuclear weapons could compel the United States and NATO allies to intervene militarily, not under Article 5, but through independent or coalition-based decisions. While Israel is not a NATO member and thus not covered by NATO’s collective defense clause, the U.S. could respond unilaterally or lead a “coalition of the willing,” particularly if regional security or American personnel are directly threatened. Military escalation would likely involve forward-operating bases such as Al Udeid (Qatar), Incirlik (Turkey), and Diego Garcia, with potential logistical support from NATO-aligned states depending on the severity and scope of the crisis.

This would likely trigger reciprocal responses from BRICS-affiliated powers. Russia could increase military assistance to Iran, while China may initiate military exercises in the South China Sea or Taiwan Strait to divert Western focus. India would be pressured diplomatically and economically to take a side, despite its desire to remain nonaligned.

In such a context, the risk of a true multipolar war across Europe, the Middle East, East Asia, and the cyber domain, becomes real.

4. Cyberattacks on Critical Infrastructure, Misattribution and Escalation
As cyberwarfare grows more sophisticated and decentralized, the risk of false-flag operations rises. A coordinated attack on water treatment facilities, power grids, or satellite systems, attributed to Iran, Israel, or even third-party actors like North Korea or rogue hacker groups, could provoke retaliatory measures based on faulty intelligence.

In a world where milliseconds matter and attribution is murky, a cyberattack on U.S. or Israeli hospitals, banks, or defense networks could be misread as an act of war, leading to disproportionate retaliation. The involvement of AI-driven response systems could further reduce the time window for human oversight.

5. Deployment of Tactical Nuclear Weapons
While both Israel and Iran have publicly denied intentions to use nuclear weapons, the logic of escalation in a high-stakes war cannot rule out their eventual deployment. Israel is widely believed to possess between 80–200, with some estimates saying as many as 400, nuclear warheads, with submarine-based second-strike capabilities. Iranian officials have stated they do not seek nuclear weapons, but intelligence assessments suggest otherwise.

In the event of overwhelming missile attacks on Tel Aviv or an existential threat to Iran’s political leadership, the threshold for using tactical nuclear weapons, small-yield, battlefield-deployed devices, may lower drastically. Israel may use such weapons to eliminate hardened bunkers or military targets, prompting an unprecedented diplomatic and humanitarian crisis.

6. Pakistan Threatens Nuclear Retaliation on Israel
Perhaps the most unpredictable escalatory path involves the entry of Pakistan, a nuclear-armed Muslim state with strong ties to Gulf nations and historic sympathy toward Iran. In the event that Israel uses tactical nuclear weapons against Iran, Pakistan may interpret the attack as a precedent for broader use against Muslim states, triggering a threat of retaliatory nuclear response.

Recent reports from intelligence sources suggest that Pakistani officials have communicated informally to U.S. and European diplomats that any nuclear strike by Israel in the region “would not go unanswered.” Though Pakistan maintains a minimum credible deterrence policy focused on India, its public and military institutions may face overwhelming domestic pressure to act.

The implications are grave: Pakistan’s involvement could regionalize the conflict across South Asia, pulling in India, destabilizing Afghanistan, and endangering global security systems built over the last 70 years.

The Perfect Storm: Scarcity, Competition, and Chaos

Overlaying these kinetic and cyber scenarios is a deeper structural crisis: resource scarcity, especially in energy, food, and critical minerals. Climate change induced droughts, collapsing biodiversity, dwindling freshwater supplies, and disrupted supply chains have already caused food riots in over 19 countries this year alone.

As nations scramble to secure access to lithium, cobalt, rare earths, and clean energy infrastructure, the boundaries between economic policy, defense strategy, and foreign intervention are vanishing. The world is sleepwalking into a condition where resource nationalism, proxy wars, and system shocks interlock to create a cascade toward large-scale conflict.

In this atmosphere, the Iran-Israel crisis is not an isolated episode, it is the spark hovering over a powder keg of global instability.

Section V: Solutions to Prevent Global Catastrophe

With the world teetering on the edge of systemic conflict, a proactive, multipolar framework for de-escalation and cooperation is urgently needed. The international community must move beyond reactionary diplomacy and instead construct durable mechanisms that mitigate conflict drivers, build transparency, and incentivize long-term cooperation. The following five proposals form the foundation of a peace architecture that could not only avert World War III but also initiate a new era of resource-sharing, technological balance, and global interdependence.

1. Ceasefire and Conflict De-escalation Framework

Drawing lessons from the Astana Talks that stabilized parts of Syria through multilateral engagement, a Regional Ceasefire and Verification Pact must be negotiated for the Middle East. This initiative would include:

• Immediate cessation of hostilities: airstrikes, ballistic missile launches, and drone incursions.

  • Deployment of third-party verification teams, similar to UNIFIL, but bolstered with advanced ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) assets from neutral nations like Norway, Switzerland, and India.

  • Creation of demilitarized buffer zones around strategic infrastructure, including nuclear sites, ports, and high-density civilian areas.

  • Formation of a joint G7-BRICS diplomatic task force to monitor compliance and serve as guarantors of ceasefire integrity.

  • Inclusion of regional players such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE to strengthen Arab consensus.

This model would not only address kinetic violence but reduce miscalculation and build the scaffolding for political talks.

2. Rare Earths Governance and Transparency Mechanism

To prevent rare earth elements from becoming the 21st-century equivalent of “blood diamonds” or oil curses, the world needs an enforceable, transparent framework. The proposed International Rare Earths Council (IREC) would be established through a UN Security Council resolution co-sponsored by both G7 and BRICS members. It would:

• Set global extraction and production standards, modeled on ISO and ESG frameworks.

• Require export license tracking systems to prevent smuggling, embargo circumvention, and hoarding.

• Ensure full ESG-compliance (environmental, social, and governance) in mining practices, with auditing by third-party monitors.

• Introduce an anti-manipulation index that monitors pricing behaviors and sanctions violators.

• Create a conflict-free certification standard, akin to the Kimberley Process, applicable to all REEs.

Participation would grant countries privileged access to investment, technology transfer, and international trade protections.

3. A “JCPOA-Plus” Agreement

The original Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), while narrowly focused on Iran’s nuclear program, must be expanded into a broader geopolitical deal that incorporates energy, minerals, and missile control.

The new JCPOA-Plus framework would include:

• A cap on uranium enrichment at 60%, with verification by the IAEA and new multilateral inspectors trained in rare earth compliance.

  • A missile control clause that limits development of MRBMs (medium-range ballistic missiles) and transfer of UAV technology to non-state actors.

  • Infrastructure aid, including grants and green tech partnerships, to incentivize Iran’s peaceful industrialization.

  • Mandatory registration and inspection of all Iranian REE facilities and exports, under IREC oversight.

  • A conflict de-escalation clause requiring immediate suspension of mining and export operations in the event of renewed hostilities.

JCPOA-Plus would be co-signed by G7, BRICS, the EU, GCC states, and Turkey, with enforcement provisions embedded in WTO and SWIFT compliance frameworks.

4. Multilateral Investment Platform for Strategic Minerals

To ensure fair access and prevent monopolization, a Global Rare Earth Development Fund (GREDF) must be launched. Seeded by contributions from the IMF, World Bank, AIIB, BRICS Bank, and sovereign wealth funds (e.g., Norway, UAE, Saudi Arabia), the GREDF would:

• Provide low-interest financing to countries in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia to build local refining capacity.

  • Facilitate technology transfers to neutral nations under licensing deals governed by IREC.

  • Create a data-sharing consortium that maps global deposits and monitors environmental impacts.

  • Prioritize projects that include value-add within country of origin, reducing raw material export dependency.

  • Build resilience corridors connecting mineral production to green infrastructure projects.

GREDF would promote a democratized mineral economy while reducing the appeal of illicit extraction and neocolonial resource grabs.

5. Global AI-Powered Conflict Early Warning System

In a world where war can be triggered by cyberattacks, false-flag operations, or sudden market collapses, preemptive intelligence is essential. A Global Conflict Risk Anticipation Platform (G-CRAP), powered by artificial intelligence and space-based sensors—should be developed.

Key features:

• Real-time satellite and drone imagery monitoring troop movements, weapons deployments, and infrastructure sabotage.

• AI models trained on historic conflict data to predict flashpoints with 7–30 day warning windows.

• Integrated social media sentiment analysis, cross-referenced with local conditions and key actor behavior.

• Built-in “red phone” diplomatic alert systems that notify designated ambassadors and UN mediators in real time.

• Operated under a UN Security Council-mandated agency, with oversight from both G7 and BRICS advisors.

This system would not only allow for rapid diplomatic mobilization but create public transparency dashboards, improving accountability and trust in global crisis response.

These five proposals are not utopian. They are pragmatic, scalable, and rooted in precedent. What is lacking is not capability, but political will. The current trajectory of unregulated escalation, strategic ambiguity, and zero-sum resource competition must give way to inclusive governance, equitable access, and credible deterrence.

The solutions are within reach. Whether leaders seize them before the next missile flies—or the next rare earth embargo hardens—is a question not just of politics, but of planetary survival.

Conclusion

The convergence of regional hostility, great power rivalry, trade war escalation, and competition over strategic minerals has placed the world on a precipice. We now face a geopolitical landscape where old paradigms of deterrence and alliance are being rewritten by technological disruption, environmental stress, and resource nationalism.

At the center of this emerging storm stands an unlikely catalyst: Iran’s ascent as a rare earth element producer. What at first appeared to be a destabilizing development, providing Tehran with new leverage amidst heightened tensions with Israel, may in fact offer a pathway out of the spiral. If the global community can resist the reflex of isolation and containment, and instead respond with strategic integration, conditional cooperation, and enforceable transparency, this moment could mark a turning point.

Handled correctly, Iran’s new role in the mineral economy could become an anchor point for regional stabilization and global governance innovation. By embedding Tehran into binding frameworks for critical mineral production, export accountability, and ESG compliance, the world can transform a flashpoint into a fulcrum of peace.

More broadly, this moment invites a reimagining of global relations. The existing bifurcation between the G7 and BRICS cannot resolve 21st-century challenges unless it gives way to hybrid multilateralism. Shared access to critical inputs, such as rare earths, must be governed not by competition, coercion, or zero-sum diplomacy, but through principled collaboration, equitable development, and data-informed peacebuilding.

The international system faces a binary choice:

• Either rare earths become the next iteration of the “resource curse”, fueling coups, wars, and economic domination,

• Or they become the scaffolding for a new era of cooperation, innovation, and strategic interdependence.

The clock is ticking. Markets are rattling. Missiles are flying. The diplomatic bandwidth is shrinking.

What the world needs now is not another war. Not another escalation. Not another cold conflict masquerading as righteous defense.

What it needs is courage, to build trust, structure oversight, and transform scarcity into shared security.

Because this isn’t just about Israel or Iran. It’s about whether the 21st century ends in fire, or is forged through foresight.

The tools are ready. The institutions exist. The stakes are planetary.

The time to act is now.

About the Author

Steven W. Pearce is an award-winning sustainability strategist, geopolitical analyst, and global development advisor with over 13 years of experience working across the public and private sectors. He is the Founder and CEO of Pearce Sustainability Consulting Group (PSCG), a globally recognized firm specializing in ESG reporting, climate risk analysis, critical mineral strategy, and sustainable infrastructure development.

Steven holds multiple advanced degrees, including an MBA in Sustainability Management, a Master of Project Management, and is currently pursuing a third master’s in International Relations at Harvard University Extension School. He also holds numerous certifications in ESG, circular economy design, and geopolitical risk management from institutions such as Duke University, the Wharton School, and various UN agencies.

His consulting portfolio includes partnerships with USAID, the U.S. Department of Defense, the World Bank, and multiple UN agencies. He has delivered ESG and sustainability guidance for over 2,200 hospitals across the United States, advised national governments across the MENA region, and contributed to policy dialogues within G7 and BRICS-aligned institutions.

Steven is also a published author whose books include From Warming to Warfare: Climate Change and the Road to World War III and the upcoming Make Green by Going Green: The Executive’s Guide to Profitability Through Sustainability. He is currently developing Climate Wars: The Role of Climate Change in Modern Conflict, the next installment in his Climate Wars series exploring the nexus of conflict, climate, and critical resources.

As a thought leader and contributor to The Muslim Vibe and The Inscriber Magazine, Steven offers a multidisciplinary lens rooted in political science, anthropology, sociology, and sustainability science. His mission is to help governments, corporations, and communities navigate the 21st century through innovation, cooperation, and systems thinking.

Article by Steven W. Pearce | June 2025 | All Rights Reserved.