Chaos Unfolding: The Israel-Iran Escalation and the Crisis of Western National Security

For years, if not decades, we’ve heard that Iran is on the brink of building a nuclear bomb. This rationale has been used again and again to justify interventions, sanctions, and threats. It has now served as the moral pretext for Israel’s preemptive strike against Iranian infrastructure and personnel. Not only did those operations target nuclear enrichment sites but have also been extended to pinpointed strikes and assassinations against individuals, nuclear scientists and military brass, including their families—all flagrant violations of the principles of international law, yet, more importantly, of the fundamental stakes of an Ethics of International Relations.

The classical boundaries of just war—proportionality and distinction—have been discarded. The guiding principle is no longer rooted in legality or morality but in Machiavellian expediency. Imaginary political goals are pursued by any and all means. The immoral logic of “the end justifies all means” is applied without any limits and humanitarian concerns—a shameful conduct, which is not merely tragic, but rather a symptom of a deeper civilizational disorder.

Yet, the Israel-Iran confrontation is but one facet of a much broader global descent into chaotic disorder. Alongside it, we witness the persistence of the Ukraine war—now in its fourth year and still dominated by the West’s refusal to engage in serious diplomacy and in acknowledging Russia’s legitimate security interests—as well as domestic turbulence in the United States.

Protests erupted nationwide on June 14—coincidentally Donald Trump’s birthday and the 250th anniversary of the founding of the US Army—against the perceived authoritarianism of his administration, while cities like Los Angeles see mounting resistance to federal ICE operations. People tend to forget—or, more accurately, people particularly on the left are unaware of—that a democratic system's governing executive in order to maintain social stability and security must grow more authoritarian the more society gets increasingly lawless and anarchistic. This apparent authoritarianism is a natural outcome of political evolution toward societal disintegration and internal striving rather than having anything to do with the reign of an absolute monarch or king. Local Democrat mayors and governors defy presidential directives and—in their civic illiteracy—act in support of the ignorant leftist mob.

Across the Atlantic, the European Union engages in its own form of institutional despotism. Unelected Eurocrats in Brussels frequently contest or sabotage Conservative triumphs in Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Austria and other places. Under the pretense of unavoidable rule of law-interventions, results of democratic elections are nullified—exposing an ideological disdain of political leaders and administrations on the left for the very populations they purport to represent. Authoritarian imposition of the European Union on member states where conservative parties and candidates are democratically elected has meanwhile become a matter of course. These widespread pseudo-interventions of totalitarian character are proof that the world is ever more entangled in chaos and mayhem.

In this environment, violence and outright war are no longer an anomaly and appear to be on the resurgence. All promising attempts post-Cold War to usher the world into a new, more peaceful and cooperative order, have failed. From Washington’s neoconservative warmongers to the belligerent factions in Brussels, Berlin, London, and Paris, one sees little evidence of restraint or prudence. They act as if they’ve lost their minds and dropped their moral compasses long time ago. They push the continuation of armed conflict that comes at horrendous expenses for populations in terms of blood and treasure. The armament and buildup of military organizations across Europe and beyond accelerates at an alarming pace. The fiscal and human cost of these policies is staggering, yet they continue, animated by a doctrine that no longer consults moral reason.

Regarding Iran specifically, I have long maintained that a rational, credible, and peaceful deterrence strategy was available. In my essays of 10 August and 27 September 2017, published in this blog here and here and included in my 2024 book "44 & 45. The Tenures of US Presidents Barack H. Obama and Donald J. Trump. A Social-Philosophical Treatise" (pp. 158–162), I proposed to apply the already existing doctrine of Annihilation upon First Strike as a sufficient strategic response to North Korea. Now it should be applied to Iran as well. This doctrine assures powers that the US will not use nuclear means first against them, but will strike with all her might when herself and allies are attacked by nuclear means first. When paired with rigorous inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), this strategy would ensure Iran’s nuclear program remained confined to peaceful civilian purposes. No preemptive strikes, sabotage, or assassination campaigns were necessary—or justifiable.

One cannot help but wonder whether President Trump, now in his second term, is still in command of U.S. foreign policy? Or has he been sidelined by a permanent national security bureaucracy—the so-called “Deep State”—and shadow-government figures such as South-Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham and like-minded interventionists and war hawks? Trump doesn’t seem to be wholly informed about the ongoings in the security arena and left out of important decisions, such as the preemptive strike Israel’s against Iran. Trump’s 2019 decision to cancel retaliatory strikes against Iran following the downing of a U.S. drone showed prudence and moral instinct. It is hard to believe he would have approved the Israeli strikes amid active negotiations. And yet, if he was uninformed or bypassed, it raises profound constitutional and strategic questions about the erosion of civilian oversight in matters of war and peace.

Of course, I hold no illusions that either he or his advisors are familiar with the outlined positions. Although, fortunately, President Trump seems to have intuitive grasp of my idea when expressing on social media: "If we were attacked in any way, shape, or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the U.S Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before." If he added to this statement "if we or Israel or other allies in the region were attacked," the strategy of Annihilation Upon 1st Strike would render any preemptive application of violent means unnecessary. I have consistently called attention to the shocking illiteracy of Western security elites in the realm of strategic philosophy and international ethics. That these actors, hidden behind a screen of bureaucratic privilege and ideological confusion, continuously ignore wiser counsel is no surprise. It is, however, a tragedy.

The only hope of returning to reason and to bring the Western world to its senses is to restore the voice of philosophical insight in matters of policy as I have also pointed out in my book 44 & 45 mentioned above. As Immanuel Kant once emphasized in his 1795 essay "Zum ewigen Frieden" (Perpetual Peace), philosophers—who ideally think holistically and are immune to manipulation and propaganda—should be welcomed (again) into the ranks of political advisors and counselors to those in power.

Today, that advice is more needed than ever. Without it, the West drifts ever further from sanity, morality, and the rule of (moral) law—and closer to an age of chaos, unrestrained violence, and unreasonableness.

Left’s War of Attrition Bears Fruit: Trump Stumbling – Three Topical Mistakes

The destructive subversion by the united political left, the bulk of the media outlets, and the GOP's neoconservative conspirators finally impact the President's policies. President Trump, surrounded by bad advisors and let down by his party, is stumbling, and erroneous policy decisions and bad 'deals' have amassed. 

It is hard to assess whether bad advice and improper counseling or the weakening of Mr. Trump's leadership instincts and deal-making capabilities are to blame. But the fact is that the constant resistance to any of President Trump's policy decisions and the unyielding hatred and negativity by which his opponents harass him show effect. His judgment appears to be clouded and generates wrong choices and failed policies. Attempts to euphemistically sell them as successful can't deceive over their inherent weaknesses. 

Here a brief analysis of the most striking failures and disappointments of recent months. 

First: Government Shutdown and Emergency Declaration. 

This issue was overall poorly planned and untimely scheduled. When Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer adamantly refused to allocate a single additional dollar for the wall, it was void and meaningless to subjecting the country to a week-long government shutdown. It was clear beforehand that nothing was going to change. 

Pelosi's stubborn declaration – in apparent antagonism to her party's recent stance on border security – laid bare that the Democrat Party and the majority in the newly elected House of Representatives had abdicated their responsibility. It was no longer about efficiently governing the country and cooperating with the President; it was about denying him any policy success whatsoever and assuring his presidency's failure. 

Speaker Pelosi's apodictic refusal to collaborate on the border wall/immigration control issue was exclusively motivated by spiteful ad hominem-hostility toward the President. The conspiracy of Democrats, Never-Trumpers, and most of the media made evident again that they constitute the real emergency in U.S. politics. 

The U.S. Constitution does not allow for the dissolution of the House of Representatives – which would have been the only appropriate measure when the lower chamber of the house ultimately rejected any collaboration whatsoever with the President on the issue of a border wall. Had he received sound advice, Mr. Trump should have designated the complete rejection of cooperation from the part of the house of representatives a situation of political distress that endangered the governability if not, in the longer run, the nation's existence. 

On these grounds, he should have declared an immediate national security emergency and unleash, by Executive Order, necessary measures to resolve the crisis at the border, including allocating funds for the border wall. Instead, subjecting the nation to the most extended government shutdown and procrastinating the crisis's resolution for several weeks was inappropriate and must be considered lousy leadership. 

Second: Breakup of Trump-Un Hanoi Summit

There is substantial evidence that the Trump administration's neocons were intentionally planning to upset the Hanoi summit. A few days before the conference, unknown forces carried out a raid on the North Korean Embassy in Madrid, Spain.

The ten masked attackers were looking for documents and information on Kim Hyok Chol, a former ambassador to Spain and close confidant of Chairman Kim Jong Un. He played a vital role in preparing the nuclear talks with the U.S. Besides, on the day of the Summit, a cyber attack was carried out on the Korean American National Coordinating Council (KANCC) in New York (for more details: Wayne Madsen @ https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/03/18/trump-cia-now-unbound-and-back-traditional-hijinks.html)

Not granting North Korea a gesture of goodwill and easing up on the sanctions sure was bad deal-making. Breaking up the talks between President Trump and Leader Kim Jong Un and letting the Summit fail because of North Korea's unwillingness to denuclearize without getting sanctions lifted or at least lightened has to be designated an utter folly. 

How can a superpower demand total denuclearization and the termination of a decade-long policy without proposing any serious incentives? How easily could sanctions be reinstated, aside from the fact that they barely affect and are highly problematic if not to say unethical? Predicting the North Koreans a 'bright economic future,' as John Bolton put it, will hopefully materialize, but is indeed not enough to cut the deal.

I have explained in my blog essay of September 9, 2017, https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2017/09/why-my-north-korea-resolve-could-have.html that the crux of the negotiations with North Korea is about the issue of guarantees for non-intervention and national sovereignty. Aware that only a minimal nuclear capability serves as the great equalizer and deters even supreme powers from intervention, North Korea justifiably demands reliable and trustworthy guarantees for protecting her national sovereignty and against regime-change intervention. In the essay mentioned above, I refer to and explain Libya's case in 2011 as one of the recent and most striking examples of how a country was betrayed by the United States and "rewarded" for its unilateral denuclearization. 

I have repeatedly addressed the damage the neoconservative influence did to U.S. foreign affairs policies in previous blog entries. The breakup of President Trump's talks with the North Korean leader over upholding the entire sanctions regime is now apparently the next big blunder neoconservatism has caused, this time around perpetrated by the usual suspect warmongers Mike Pompeo and John Bolton. 

These hawkish counselors' bad advice found its immediate continuation with the third failure Mr. Trump had himself talked into – the policy toward Venezuela. 

Third: Interventionist policies vis-à-vis Venezuela

No doubt, the domestic situation in Venezuela and the country's economic demise is alarming. While the desire to help is understandable, we must not forget that the U.S.'s economic sanctions and embargos contributed to the malaise. 

As much as a conservative U.S. administration might deride the Socialist President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, and wants to see him gone, the premature support of the opposition candidate Juan Guaido was a failure. Guaido dared to declare himself the rightful President, and Washington's blessing sets another awful precedent in the long history of illegitimate U.S. interventions. 

Unfortunately, the regime-change operation is in line with the U.S.' unilateral interventionist policies dominating three decades since the end of the Cold War. With overt and covert interventionist policies (i.e., Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine), U.S. administrations have compromised the U.S.' reputation within the international community. While this interventionist imperialism ended in horrible failures, no lessons seem to be drawn by the American foreign policy establishment. 

On the occasion of Libya's intervention, I explained why all nations' equal sovereignty and the ensuing non-intervention principle is not only a meaningful stipulation of international law (Article 2/4 of the UN Charter and U.N. Resolution 2131 of December 21, 1965). It is, even more, a morally valid norm for the interactions within the global society and its members (https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2011/03/us-and-european-foreign-policy-blunder.html).

 

Although candidate Trump in his presidential campaign promised to end such policies, this dangerous course of U.S. foreign affairs continues under the pressure of neoconservative elements in the U.S. government. 

We will soon find out if President Trump will override the adversarial influence and fulfill his promise to retreat the U.S. from the disastrous policy of waging interventionist wars. Interventions in foreign countries that neither directly impact U.S. strategic interests nor represent a national security threat. 

President Trump's domestic policies (economic, regulatory, cultural, legal) are undeniably successful. It is now high time to align U.S. foreign affairs and national security with this path of achievement.

A Call for a Statute of Limitations on the Reporting of Sexual Harassment

As domestic politics in the United States deteriorate ever more into hateful obstructionism and animosity, an old tool of denunciating the political opponent has reemerged. Accusations of sexual harassment abound to an inflationary degree, and it's time to do something about it. 

 

 During the recent presidential campaign, schemers raised allegations of sexual misconduct to denounce then-presidential nominee Donald Trump; now, they use the same tool against a candidate who runs for a Republican seat in the US Senate. A sexual harassment hit-job has been launched against Judge Roy Moore of Alabama, carried out by a woman who has been a political activist and was allegedly harassed by Moore some four decades ago when she was supposedly still underage. In the meantime, it turns out that she has forged an entry into a high school yearbook. Even a Democrat came under fire, Senator Al Franken, but he appears to be a particular case. The way he resigned his Senate seat makes one assume that it is sanctimoniously sacrificed for the Democratic Party to have leverage in the future against Republican candidates or even the President himself. 

 

 All of a sudden, and years if not decades after alleged incidents took place, at convenient points in time during campaigns and just weeks before elections, accusations are made public, mere statements denounce candidates, and barely any or none evidence support the claims. With word against word, reputations are tainted, and careers, if not destroyed, then often severely damaged. 

 

 How often have I, decades ago, as a young military officer, petted a recruit on his shoulder, trying to cheer him up in situations of distress and exhaustion? Or later in my career embraced a secretary or colleague when she (or he) had just learned of a severe blow of fate? How easily could one of these guys today, given ill-will, ideological resentment, and getting paid enough money, go public and accuse me of inappropriate advancements or even sexual harassment if I were to run for public office? Any of these situations, taken out of context, could harm my reputation severely, even though any of these situations, in proper perspective, would testify to morality and personal leadership skills.

 

There is no doubt that the perpetrators of harassment and inappropriate behavior should be held accountable. However, there must be limits to when victims may raise accusations of alleged or actual harassment. This unfortunate and pernicious trend of sexual harassment accusations in private and political spheres must end. 

If we honestly envisage beneficial and prosperous gender-coexistence, I propose the observation of the following three courses of action:

 

 Firstly, both males and females have to find that sense of humor and understanding again that, inside the confines of cultured tact, helps deal with the erotically charged atmosphere that naturally and almost always subconsciously plays out between the sexes, even and particularly also in non-sexual situations. In the humorless age of political correctness and undiscriminating sexual equality, people seem to have unlearned the decent and thoughtful way of dealing with this phenomenon.

 

 Secondly, as I have argued in the cases of Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner, people have got to realize that the sexual persona of a man stands outside his moral character. If a guy, for whatever reason, goes too far in his advancement and, short of violent behavior and physical harm, says or does something inappropriate, it should not destroy his career or ruin his life. In other words, a sexual misstep does not necessarily mean that this person could not be trustworthy as a politician or employee, as a friend or business associate, or even as a Hollywood magnate. 

 

 Thirdly, legislative authorities ought to constitute a statute of limitations for reporting non-criminal sexual advancements and harassment. If violated, sanctions and penalties apply to prevent denunciations and the premature conviction of alleged perpetrators in the court of public opinion. Still, harsher penalties must await those whose allegations turn out to be unfounded or even fabricated. I suggest introducing a one-year statute of limitations, three years at the most, from the time of the incident or from reaching the age of maturity to be appropriate. 

 

 Like so many other issues about the arrangement of human coexistence, we can appropriately deal with the topic of sexual harassment only on the grounds of suitable cultural awareness and proper education, precisely what liberal feminism and the impositions of the progressive Left of recent years rendered nearly impossible. 

 

It is time to rediscover a differentiated stance on sexual equality and let healthy levels of sensitivity, chivalry, mutual respect, and civility return to how males and females deal with each other. Restraint on the part of men in their advancements and an elegant rejection on the part of women grows naturally out of proper socialization and education, both of which help to instill a moral sense of virtue and reciprocal courtesy.