The World in Limbo

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (1). One can find many periods in History which could be compared to the Middle-East-centered, worldwide crisis we are living through today. I will bring forth two such periods. This is my arbitrary choice.

The first one, very recent, seemingly very simple to understand, started in 2015 with the signature of the JCPOA, in clear the deal aimed at limiting Iranian’s nuclear ambitions. Following numerous violations by Iran of this deal they had recently signed, the USA withdrew from this agreement in 2018. While some believe that it is this withdrawal that prompted Iran to expand its uranium enrichment program, to suspend all cooperation with the UN, and to accelerate its long-range missile program, it later became clear that Iran, in spite of their signature on the pages of the JCPOA, never intended to comply by it. They have since then repeated over and over that no-one will ever force them to slow down their military uranium program and their missile development.

And yet, day in and day out, the entire Western World, many international organizations (UN et al.) and most in the Arab World are pushing the US to sign and trust a written deal with Iran. Never mind the fact that they never reneged on their commitment to annihilate Israel (Little Satan) and the USA (Great Satan).  Never mind the fact that Iran has large quantities of highly enriched uranium and the missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons to the entire planet. These goodwill nations and organizations posit the following: If we can get Iran to sign a piece of paper saying they will be good citizens of the international community, we should accept it at face value, remove all our forces from the Middle East and leave them alone.

My opening quote makes it very clear: Iran violated their signed agreement once. How can anyone believe they will not do it again?

In fact, to make this point clear, I want to bring forth the wisdom of another philosopher, Emanuel Kant, who, in 1795, said in essence (2): If a democratic entity signs a written peace agreement with another democratic entity, this agreement can be trusted. However, if a democratic entity signs a peace agreement with a dictatorship, one should not trust this agreement under any circumstance. Kant’s reasoning went like this: a democracy comes to be through peaceful means and maintains itself through peace which is its stable state. However, a dictatorship comes to power through war and maintains itself through war which is therefore its stable state. The JCPOA episode has demonstrated the validity of Kant’s assertion. Do we really want to test it again by trusting Iran’s signature?

The second period which presents frightening similarities with today’s events is what the French call “l’entre deux guerres”, the period of time between the end of World War 1 (1918) and the beginning of World War 2 (1939). Following the Versailles treaty signature, the world believed it had witnessed “la der des der”: the last war for eternity. After all, the Germans had signed a document saying they will not rebuild their military forces and they will live peacefully thereafter. Well, in no time did Germany start its military buildup, and when the nazi party seized power in January of 1933, they transformed a fragile democracy into a brutal dictatorship and made clear their ambition to forcefully build an empire. The strategy chosen by the leading western nations of that time (France and England) was appeasement: Daladier and Chamberlain signed the Munich treaty with Germany. To further appease them, they gave them part of Czechoslovakia (the Sudetenland); could we call this a “land for peace” attempt? They both came back home happy, certain to have bought “peace for our time”. Well, we all know what happened: 85 million people died in WW2 including 6 million Jewish martyrs, may their memory be never forgotten.

The parallel between this “entre deux guerres” and today’s events is too obvious to be ignored. Appeasement does not work, especially when the enemy is a strong dictatorship and when our support base is weak: Europe is divided and in crisis, economically and politically. The UN is as useless as the SDN was before WW2. The countries of the region are weak militarily and very ambivalent vis a vis Iran based on religious affiliation. President Trump is facing an uncertain future due to the November mid-term elections and is losing some of its domestic and a large part of its international support. Still, Trump is the most powerful leader on the planet leading the mightiest military force ever assembled. Israel, perhaps only Israel, is recognizing the danger looming ahead if the Iran crisis is not solved quickly and properly. And Israel is warning Trump, day in and day out, about the danger of inaction, and the fallacy of appeasement.

So why so many of us, here in Israel, and so many of our fellow Jews throughout the world have this hollow feeling in our chest, this feeling of being held in limbo at a time when the allied forces (namely the USA and Israel) should act?

President Trump communication is largely responsible for feeding this limbo feeling: The daily change from “we are going to war promptly” followed by “we are pausing because we believe we can reach a deal with Iran through negotiation” , and then again “we cannot trust them, we are going to restart war”, then “ other Arab countries tell us we can trust Iran’s promises, so we are pausing again”……

Perhaps everyone knows, but most chose to ignore the risks of remaining in limbo, even for a short period of time: Iran is quickly rebuilding its offensive capacity, it is enriching uranium to reach military grade as fast as it can (some say they are weeks away from that goal), and it is financing and  arming its many proxies to be able to expand the war. The results could transform a local war into a global catastrophe. Like Germany in 1939, Iran will likely invade its neighbors, destroy worldwide commerce and affect the economy of the planet. And like the nazis, Iran’s plan for the Jewish people will be dreadful.

Everyone knows what the solution is: Iran has to morph into a stable, real, participative, popular democracy. The Mollahs must go, all of them. The enriched uranium inventory must be shipped away from the Middle East. Long range missiles must be destroyed. No nuclear enrichment can be allowed. The new Iran will commit to peace and live peacefully. International maritime laws must be obeyed.

Nothing short of that should be acceptable. But most importantly, no commitment to any of the above, verbal, signed or otherwise made by the Mollahs can ever be believed.

This limbo situation we are in is utterly dangerous: it gives the Mollahs the impression that we believe in appeasement, that we are ready to “negotiate”, in other word that we will trust their signature on a piece of paper. Enough with this illusion. There is a job to be done for the greater good of our world, the sooner we do it, the clearer our common future will be.

(1): George Santayana, The life of reason, 1905

(2): Emanuel Kant, Projet de Paix Perpétuelle, 1795