It’s been quite a year so far.
January: elections – mixed results, no overall winner..
February: election coalition – no results, very few compromises.
March: election coalition extension – not quite there yet, still taking it down to the wire.
And, with a long delayed US presidential visit now nearing fruition, the race to have a new Israeli governing body up and running before this time next week is intensifying.
But some things never seem to speed up, no matter what the circumstances.
Sanctions may never work out as intended where Iran is concerned. On the prospect of Iranian nuclear prohibition, international measures alone are not expected to extract any far-reaching concessions while military intervention must be regarded very much as that of a last resort. Even if tactically successful, acting in such a precipitous manner will create many more problems than it solves.
But is there another method and can this offer up a better outcome?
Instead of applying external pressure in the hope of forcing some grudging acquiescence, the creation and deployment of an almost completely internal approach could yield far better results.
The Iranian administration’s desire to join the nuclear club, although officially never admitted, does complicate matters as regards the long-term future and stability of the region.
But why does Iran want to avail itself of the nuclear option? Why, for that matter, does any nation?
Fear of annihilation was the driving force behind the creation and expansion of these weapons in the first place and that fear still maintains them in being to this very day.
Some fears can be controlled, even nullified but it’s never an easy task. One way, though, is to install what amounts to a far greater fear and allow that to shift focus from the former. If this second fear remains in the ascendant, then many problems associated with the first one shrink to smaller, more manageable proportions, bringing about the likelihood of their rapid disposal.
And, if this second fear just happens to be entirely man-made and thereby directly influenced by human thought and action, then the random, arbitrary nature of past conflicts comes to an end and must give place to this newer, more advanced technique in peacemaking.
Once the human race can demonstrate its ability to handle just one major conflict without recourse to violence or extreme arm-twisting, then success breeds success and all other areas of contention will suddenly appear much more vulnerable. Even Iran’s nuclear ambitions may very well succumb to such a radical development in human understanding.
The best rationale for terminating any sort of conflict is to provide an acceptable exit path for all concerned, making sure that the situation can work in everyone’s favour. And, after so much time has passed, that point must surely have been reached by now.
The days when all of us could only manage baby steps in these matters should have ended long ago.