Fears of a potential World War III have grown after the United States and Israel reportedly carried out coordinated strikes on Iran over the weekend that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. According to Al Jazeera, the attacks resulted in at least 555 deaths across Iran. The escalation began on Saturday, 28 February, when the joint military operation took place. US President Donald Trump stated that the purpose of the strikes was to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Iran quickly responded with retaliatory strikes targeting Israel and several US-aligned countries in the region, including Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. These nations maintain close diplomatic and military relationships with Washington. The rapid escalation has raised global concerns that the conflict could spread beyond the region and develop into a broader international war. As tensions rise, many people are questioning where they might be safest if a large-scale global conflict were to occur. Experts suggest that politically neutral countries with low levels of militarisation and significant geographic isolation—such as Antarctica, Iceland, New Zealand, and Argentina—could offer relatively safer conditions during such a crisis.
However, specialists caution that no place would be entirely safe, particularly if nuclear weapons were used. Previous US simulations indicate that states housing missile silos in the central United States could face the highest radiation risks during nuclear strikes. These include Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota, while parts of the East Coast and Southeast may face comparatively lower exposure risks.
