Is The War Over (Again)?

Maybe this time, Charlie Brown will actually get to kick the football. Maybe this time, Lucy won’t pull it away at the last second. Trump – in the role of Charlie Brown – keeps trying to kick the football, which takes the form of a “deal” with the Iranians. Who aren’t actually playing the role of Lucy because – apparently – they’re not the ones holding the football.

Trump seems to be.

He says the U.S. has “ended the war.” But what does that mean? The Iranians say that “nothing has been finalized” and that reports of a supposed “settlement” are “speculative,” in the words Esmail Baghael, on behalf of Iran’s Foreign Ministry. How can there be a “deal” when one side is not – apparently – a party to it?

It is a weird and wondrous thing. Also a repetitive thing – in that this is – what’s the count? – yet another instance of Trump claiming the war is over or nearly over; that a “deal” is all-but-done. Maybe it is, this time. Maybe Charlie Brown will get to kick the football at last. It would be nice were that to happen and not only because this war serves no discernible American interest and has caused death and mayhem, which is always immoral when unjustified. But how likely is it that the Iranians will agree to a “deal” that amounts to a capitulation? Trump’s demands are analogous to the unconditional surrender demanded of Germany by the United States toward the end of WW II, with the difference being the Germans were beaten. Their military and their economy were in ruins; allied troops had physically conquered most of Germany. The Germans had lost the power to effectively resist. They had no real choice but to surrender unconditionally and hope the allies would be merciful.

Iran does not appear to be in this position. There are no American troops in Tehran. Tehran appears to be perfectly capable of hitting back when it is hit. It still controls passage through the Strait of Hormuz, which means it still controls the flow of a large part of the world’s supply of petroleum and other vital materials. Why would the Iranians agree to surrender those advantages? Why – above all of that – would the Iranians budge an inch on the issue of nuclear capabilities? If this war has taught the Iranians anything, it is that Israel – and so, effectively, the United States – will never abide a truly sovereign Iran. Meaning, an Iran that has the capability to meaningfully defend itself against Israel and the United States. A nuclear deterrent is the only thing that (so far) deters the regime-changers in Washington and Tel Aviv. Giving up that capability would be something like agreeing to disarm yourself before venturing into a neighborhood controlled by armed thugs. Something worse, actually – because in this case the thugs do not restrict themselves to their neighborhood.

There is a rumor afoot which may or may not be true that there was a phone conversation between an Iranian official and a Pakistani official who acts as an intermediary between Iran and the United States about the situation and that this phone call was contrived so as to be deliberately overheard. In the course of the conversation, it was let slip that Iran would – if things do note abate in its favor – detonate a nuclear weapon on its own territory (i..e, an underground test) to demonstrate that it has the capability to meaningfully defend itsef. Perhaps that is why Trump now says a “deal” is all but done (again) and this time, maybe so.

Maybe he knows the war is no longer winnable. But if that is the case, will he modify his demands such that the Iranians can accept them? More to the point, will the Israelis (this includes the ones “serving” in the U.S. government) accept them? That seems doubtful, not because this would be reasonable – and Israel (and so, the United States) is an unreasonable gaggle of zero-sum-game fanatics who have to win, as they define winning. Which entails Iran losing, bigly. An unbroken Iran means a loss for Israel (and by dint of that, the Israelites who run the United States). It means checkmate. An end to the Greater Israel project as well as the “status” of the United States as the rottweiller of the Israelis that can be sicced on anyone the Israelis say “threatens” Israel – which is to say, any state that isn’t broken by Israel and the Israelis who control the government of the United States.

It is hard to see such a “deal” actually happening – unless Trump (and Israel) have threatened to use nuclear weapons first, which is a possibility. The Iranians might agree to a “deal” if the alternative is immolation. Then again, is immolation a worse alternative than castration?

We’ll soon see which of the two it is. Maybe it will be neither. And the war will keep on keeping on.

. . .

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.