The Israel-Iran Crescendo. Does the USA play in the Climax?

I think a lot of Americans did not expect the situation between Israel and Iran to escalate to the current level. Me included. I had thought that after the Israeli strikes on its nuclear program and personnel, Iran would cease military actions after an initial big response. But the conflict on both sides continued. Iran appears to have gotten the worst of the exchange, but we should not overlook the fact that Israel got hit too, and its anti-missile defense has been taxed. Israel's economy has also had a war tax, with the hundreds of millions of dollars it has had to spend in its conflict with Iran and the proxies, plus now civil infrastructure damage, including a strike on Israel's prestigious Weizmann Institute of Science. And it's not over.

The conflict's volume continues to increase, building some additional drama for how this will end. The current conflict arguably started with October 7, not the recent Israeli strike on Iran. However, the hostilities between Iran and the USA go back much further (at least 1979). How this ends, I think, will largely be determined by the Trump administration's reaction to the Iranian theocracy's hostile, belligerent intransigence. Our Western media and leaders don't seem to try to understand either Iran or its leaders well. We largely have an institutional and cultural ignorance that I believe hinders our ability to adequately deal with Iran. So let us try to learn something beyond superficialities. Recent WSJ op-eds haven't really bolstered my confidence in this regard.

It's a famous legend that the Roman politician and orator Cato the Elder ended every speech, regardless of topic, with the phrase "...and Carthage must be destroyed." If there is any other historical repetitious quote that can compete with Cato's, then it's the Iranian Islamic Republic's slogan of "Death to America, Death to Israel!" "Great Satan" and "Little Satan" are also names for the USA and Israel, respectively. The Islamic cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini is credited with popularizing these slogans during the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Iran continued the Islamic Revolution tradition of keeping these chanted slogans alive with the Iranian state-sponsored annual holiday of "Quds Day."

Quads Day was reportedly founded by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. During this annual holiday (which comes toward the end of the holy Ramadan period), the regime calls for the "liberation of Jerusalem" and the implied annihilation of Israel. (This holiday is not yet celebrated at Harvard and Columbia.) Part of the festivities is to march with signs calling for the death of America, the burning of both American and Israeli flags, and burning the effigies of American and Israeli leaders - even Obama. So time has not appeared to lessen the red-hot fervor of the ruling Islamic clerics since the overthrow of the Shah.

To understand the Iranian Regime, you probably need to understand something about the Islam that they adhere to and the religious structure of promotion in which they rise. I can't say I fully understand it, but I can try. My understanding of religion in the USA is categorically different than the religion that governs Iranian Islam. Of course they find their way vastly superior to mine, and likely yours, no doubt, as is evident in their comments. I am "Kafir." The perpetual revolution of their Islam is key. They pull no punches in negatively depicting their Arab neighbors, either. In the American media, we hear about how we need to cater to the "moderates" in the Iranian government; that the USA needs to be as compliant and as generous as possible to not offend these "moderates," and thus enhance the position of the "hardliners." The idea that if the USA gives, and gives some more, and then finally defers to the mullahs, then they in return will finally become friendly and normal members of the Western, formally liberal world order. Fat chance.

Recently, the Iranian government has proven that Trump isn't the only entity that posts colorful material on social media. I checked out the official X account of Iran to the UN. Some interesting statements can be found. If we have an indication of whether or not Iran is eagerly open to dealing with the USA, then we might be able to find evidence. So let's take a look at some quotes:

Iran Mission to UN:

If the objective of negotiations is to address concerns vis-à-vis any potential militarization of Iran’s nuclear program, such discussions may be subject to consideration. However, should the aim be the dismantlement of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program to claim that what Obama failed to achieve has now been accomplished, such negotiations will never take place.

So, in other words, Iran abandoning a nuclear program is completely out of any discussion. Let's see what Iran states in more recent posts:

Iran Mission to UN:

Jun 13

The Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations has submitted an urgent letter to the Security Council—signed by our Foreign Minister—vehemently condemning the Israeli regime’s unlawful and reckless attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, as well as the targeted assassinations of senior officials and innocent civilians. The Israeli regime and its backer—namely the United States—shall be held fully accountable for these blatant violations of international law and their grave consequences.

Jun 18

No Iranian official has ever asked to grovel at the gates of the White House. The only thing more despicable than his lies is his cowardly threat to “take out” Iran’s Supreme Leader. Iran does NOT negotiate under duress, shall NOT accept peace under duress, and certainly NOT with a has-been warmonger clinging to relevance. Iran shall respond to any threat with a counter-threat, and to any action with reciprocal measures.

Jun 19

Iran categorically rejects the Zionists’ false claim of targeting a hospital. Our self-defense measures are precise and fully consistent with international law, targeting only facilities directly involved in and supporting the regime’s unlawful aggression. Contrary to the Israeli fanatics, Iran is committed to International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and does not target civilians and civilians’ infrastructure.

Jun 20

At today’s UNSC meeting, Iran calls on the Council to: • Determine Israel’s attacks as a breach of peace & acts of aggression; • Act under Chapter VII to stop & prevent further aggression; • Condemn unequivocally the violation of Iran’s sovereignty & targeting of safeguarded nuclear sites & facilities.

Those sound like fighting words from a government that is dug in. In looking at how Iran plans to proceed, it appears Iran is running to the UN for help and trying to lobby the Europeans to condemn Israel and put pressure on the USA to back down. Iran has announced and formally filed paperwork to the UN, as stated on their account. We'll see if any help comes from Russia or China. I also tried the linked Iranian foreign PR site, but for some reason it's down for maintenance.

The current supreme Ayatollah of Iran was all vinegar in his response to Trump. His holiness seemed to channel his best version of an Iranian Churchill. So, no evidence of moderation there. But that hasn't stopped prominent US media outlets and figures from "hoping" that Iran will suddenly become agreeable. The WSJ ran a long article on Jan. 20, titled, Iran Is Down, but Not Yet Out. The leading expert on the nuclear program, David Albright, sizes up the progress of Israel’s military campaign in the article by Tunku Varadarajan of NYU Law School’s Classical Liberal Institute. The article ends with this:

“Ultimately, you do have to hope that the regime changes.”

Well, I've heard that hope is not a strategy. Hoping for Iran to have a sudden change of heart seems like counting on a miracle.

The Regime seems not to be a variable, but rather a fixed constant. From the uninterrupted line of Islamic religious clerics, the message has been faithfully anti-Israel and anti-American. Why would it change now? Hope from WSJ experts?

In 1979, revolutionaries took over the US Embassy and took hostages. Boy, did they love sporting those hostages. Today, Iran's proxy Hamas still holds hostages. And, boy, do they like sporting those hostages, even when those hostages are deceased - or even babies. They make a show of it. The American hostages in '79 were eventually released with an incoming conservative administration. So what are the options now?

If the clerics continue, and the Islamic Republic of Iran continues as is, then I don't see why to expect any changes in the country. Iran is a fairly large country in terms of both area and population. If the conflict stops now, the regime could (and likely will) rebuild itself and its proxies. They have a literal religious zeal for their mission. The annual holiday of Quds will continue to be sponsored, in which "Death to America, Death to Israel" are chanted and flags burned. This is an outcome that many in the USA and Europe would be fine with, provided it deferred any conflict in the immediate future. Probably fewer Israelis would find this situation agreeable post-Oct. 7 and following the missile strike waves.

So, with no nuclear deal and no compromise, that leaves it up to the USA and Israel to decide their next move. Iran appears to already have made theirs. Israel supposedly can't hit the deeply embedded nuclear facilities without American help. So the US might have to use the heavy bombs to do direct strikes. Some would be fine with simply hitting Iranian targets hard, to stop there and let the chips fall where they may. Others seem to be looking for a deliberate regime change in Iran - a position that I can understand Israel taking to avoid having to redo all of this in 10-15 years or so. Some simply want not so much "regime change," but rather "regime decapitation." No nation-building, but regime destruction, while leaving population centers untargeted.

The American position on regime change is much more complicated. The term itself, "regime change," has become a bit toxic. It's opening a box with unknowns coming out. Some say stick with the devil you know, even when that devil literally calls you the devil. Destruction of the Iranian regime might cause mass refugee migration, radical groups within Iran taking up loose military arms to become an ISIS organization, or any number of other things. One thing difficult to envision is a liberal democratic government developing out of the regime collapse, because chaos typically assists the nastiest SOB's rise to the top. The Arab Spring came and went and was forgotten.

Allegedly, Iran had a plan to threaten Trump's life. Two weeks have been given as a timeline within which Trump will make a decision. I imagine that testing American public sentiment to find out where his own support is has as much a role to play as military considerations. Also, the more verbally defiant and inflexible the Iranian supreme leader sounds, the more Trump has the PR material to order the big strikes. Iran's best chance of stopping those strikes might come by suing in a US Federal District Court rather than by running to the UN and EU. Geopolitically, China gets cheap oil from Iran and Russia gets drones and military support. The USA seems to be looking for deterrence with both. This is a secondary consideration for possible actions.

Iran says, "All must stand against the distortion of truth. Understanding history and geography is a prerequisite for sound governance; realities do not change by decisions made in the Oval Office. Quoth the atlas, “Persian—Forevermore.” Trump says...?

--------------------

PS. I think the late and much-maligned Richard Nixon had a keen sense of geopolitics. He was worth listening to in his analysis of events post-presidency. Listening to him in interviews makes you realize that the guy was pretty smart; compared to most of today's political figures, he was miles ahead in terms of intellect. In one interview, Nixon shocked some by saying the Shah was not "ruthless enough" and "too progressive" to stay in power in Iran. To hear him briefly explain, the interview is below. He also wrote some books in his retirement.