The title of Kierkegaard’s first and perhaps most famous book was Either/Or.
He was talking specifically about choosing between a life of aesthetic hedonism or one of ethical commitment, but the title contains a lesson that applies to life in general and the war on Iran in particular.
Alas, the lesson is too often ignored. We consider one possibility in isolation, forgetting that it’s usually an alternative to something else. It’s only by weighing one against the other that we can judge the wisdom of an action.
This truism is roundly disregarded by those who take issue with the assault on Iran undertaken by the US and Israel. Actually, ‘take issue’ is an understatement – no one does that any longer. ‘Hysterically attack’ is more accurate.
Don’t Trump and Netanyahu realise that their action may plunge the whole Middle East into a blood-soaked chaos, compared to which the Iraq War will look like a warm-up exercise? Do they want a Middle Eastern war of all against all, with millions dead and more millions inundating Europe and the US?
The answers are, yes, they realise and no, they don’t want. But they must have gone through Kierkegaard’s binary choice and considered what would happen if Iran was allowed to go about her business unmolested.
Quite apart from murdering Iranians, Iran’s business, in case anyone has forgotten, is promoting terrorism and fomenting hatred all over the world, but specifically against Israel and her allies, especially the US. To that end, Iran’s regime, with a little help from its Russian friends, has been developing nuclear weapons and means of their delivery.
Other countries possess such WMDs, but so far they’ve been wise enough not to use them. Iran’s chieftains can’t be relied on to display similar wisdom. The moment they acquire nuclear bombs, they’ll attach them to missiles and hit Israel – to begin with. Other targets, countries the mullahs and their Revolutionary Guard wire-pullers regard as satanic, may also be in their sights.
Those target countries that have a nuclear capability, specifically Israel, will surely respond in kind. The whole region will be plunged into a nuclear war, with consequences as horrific as they are unpredictable.
I’m the first to accuse political leaders of self-serving cynicism, and it’s indeed possible that Trump and Netanyahu resorted to this time-dishonoured trick of diverting public attention from domestic problems. Trump especially may want to counteract his recent Supreme Court debacle and possibly some forthcoming news from the Epstein files.
However, it’s also possible that Trump and Netanyahu know something we don’t about Iran’s nuclear programme. It’s that either/or again.
It’s true that George W. Bush and Tony Blair lied about Iraq’s WMDs to get the US and Britain into an ill-advised war. But unlike them, neither Trump nor Netanyahu defines the war objective as turning Iran into a US-style democracy complete with a bicameral parliament, independent judiciary and a bill of rights.
That was a toxic neocon fantasy, one kind that Trump isn’t given to. His stated casus belli is that Iran’s regime is evil (true); Iran presents a palpable danger to the region, especially America’s staunchest ally, Israel (true); Iran also presents a danger to the US herself (possibly true, but unlikely); Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons (true, depending on how one defines ‘close’).
So far so good. But, once we’ve got the casus belli out of the way to everyone’s begrudging satisfaction, then the fun starts. The kick-off question is: What’s the finis belli, chaps? How do you expect the war to end?
Regime change is on everyone’s lips, which is always nice when the regime in question is as venomous as Iran’s. However, no evil regime in modern history has ever been unseated by aerial power alone. The Allies dropped almost three megatons of explosives on Germany, but that only softened the ground for those proverbial boots, not obviated the need for them.
Neither the US nor Israel seems to be planning a ground assault: the US because it lacks the will; Israel, because it lacks the means. Iran, after all, has a population of 93 million and a territory almost seven times the size of Britain’s.
Trump is counting on a popular uprising breaking out in Iran, and in fact he has called for it. This is a daring call, considering that just a couple of weeks ago Iranian troops slaughtered tens of thousands of people who had gone out into the streets in answer to a similar appeal from Trump.
Having said that, Iranians are more civilised than Iraqis, and hence more of them loathe theocratic tyranny – especially since real power there is in the hands of fascistic Revolutionary Guards. There must be a lot of steam pressure building up under the surface, and there is every chance it may burst through. Then again, it may not. It’s either/or.
Another possibility is that the US and Israel don’t expect a regime change in Iran. All they may want is degrading Iran’s capability to do mischief internationally. To serve that more limited aim, they may merely look to destroy Iran’s air force, missile launchers, nuclear capability and the industries that could replenish such losses.
The long-term objective may also be turning Muslims against one another, along the lines of divide et impera. The Middle East seems ready for that.
Westerners tend to lump all Muslims together, but in fact the religious makeup of the Middle East is similar to its weather: mostly Sunni, but sometimes Shiite. None so hostile as divergent exponents of the same creed, and Iran has proved that point yet again by expending her limited missile arsenal on hitting five-star hotels in Dubai and airports in Abu Dhabi.
Their vindictive aim is to make the region undesirable for foreign investors, including those in the Trump family. The Emirates in particular depend on such investors and expats, at least 240,000 of whom are wealthy Britons seeking tax shelters. They may change their mind when they have to start thinking of bomb shelters instead.
This has to bring Arab states into some sort of coalition with the US and the rest of NATO, which will be one positive outcome of the war. But not if the decapitated regime in Iran does a Hydra and grows new heads to replace those severed by American missiles.
History shows that, when the US enters regional conflicts, she seldom stays the course for the long haul. Not a single war America has fought since 1945 has ended in an unequivocal victory; most have ended in defeats, with or without face saved.
Bertie Russell would insist that this doesn’t necessarily mean each subsequent war would follow the same pattern, and for once he’d have a point. But a general tendency is observable. All in all, this war may or may not prove as futile as, say, the Vietnam War or the one in Iraq. It’s either/or.
It pains me to be unable to be more definitive, but my crystal ball has gone cloudy. No one, I suspect not even Trump, really knows where the war is going and how it will end. However, the war must have something to recommend it, considering who has condemned it.
Leading the way is Putin, the fascist dictator; Xi and Kim, the communist dictators; and, for a bit of local colour, Jeremy Corbyn, the aspiring Marxist dictator.
Putin had the gall to send this note to the Iranian president: “Please accept my deep condolences in connection with the murder of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Seyed Ali Khamenei, and members of his family, committed in cynical violation of all norms of human morality and international law.”
Putin appealing to human morality and international law is a bit like Hitler calling for racial equality, but KGB thugs don’t get irony. Neither do Chinese communists who have decried “a serious violation of Iran’s sovereignty and security, a trampling on the aims and principles of the UN Charter and the basic norms of international relations”.
Trump and Netanyahu must be doing something right. We’ll just have to see whether or not their effort will produce a worthy result. It’s either/or.