5 Opposite Meanings of ‘End the Iran War’
“Ending the war” is a slogan with several opposite meanings. How it is ended, and whether it ever truly ends, depends primarily on several choices the US must make. They have extremely different results.
The actual options:
- End” the war by Trump giving up.
- “End” the war with a compromise deal, leaving the regime intact, but nuclear and missiles programs declared to be more limited than before.
- “End” the war after a major turnover of regime leadership, but keeping most of the Islamic Republic’s formal and informal state structures in the name of avoiding chaos.
- “End” the war after a collapse of the regime, followed by chaos – no clear regime, civil strife, secessionist ethnic efforts. Probably resulting in a restoring of order by what remains of security forces.
- End the war by a replacement of the regime on terms that lead to a stable transition to a stable regime that is friendly to the West and that is backed by the majority of the population.
The first four options merely proclaim an “end” to the war. The regime’s the 47-year hybrid war against the West is not ended; it just suffers a setback and a temporary hiatus. That hybrid war spans the entire range, from the large-scale Iranian-led terrorism we have suffered from Argentina to Gaza, to the proxy wars and destabilization we have suffered throughout the Near East, to the nuclear weapons program and Holocaust-completion preparations.
The four fake peace options are options for letting that war resume, with all its dangers — and probably go through to completion the next time around, when there will not be a Trump willing to go to war against it.
The fifth option – real regime change – is the only one that actually ends the war. It does so by leading – either immediately or through an enforced transition – to a fundamentally new, opposition-led regime.
It is also the only option that is compatible with the vital interests of America and its allies.
