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.

Ukraine War - Europe Destroyed by Vulgar Pacifism and Strategic Illiteracy among Western Elites

War of aggression! Criminal Putin! Heroic Zelensky! Barbaric Russians! Glorious Ukrainians! 

 

These designations and other absurdities have been regurgitated to dumb down the masses while the war raged for the past ten months. Despite the damage done, Western political elites are intensifying the propaganda in their desperate attempt to avoid losing face. They duplicate their pronounced security illiteracy, deepen the conflict, and reduce the chances of a negotiated peace. 

 

The false and vulgar pacifist attitude to designate the one who used violent military means first - no matter the reasons and overall context - still prevails in Western political and media quarters. It is totally left out of the picture that Mr. Putin had exhausted all peaceful means and was virtually thrust into violently resolving an existential threat to his nation's security. 

 

No war is an isolated act and should not and must not be regarded as such, as the armchair strategists and self-proclaimed security policy experts on TV have tried to make us believe. But I provided comprehensive political and philosophical analyses of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in previous blog entries and publications. Find details here and here.

 

Former radical pacifists of the European green and socialist parties keep pushing for further arms delivery to Ukraine and support of the war effort. Their hatred for Russia and subservience to a U.S. warmongering regime appear even to trump their long-held ideological convictions. And the public, by and large, still mirrors the pernicious bias of their political masters. 

 

According to polls, more than half of the population in Western European countries still prefer an unconditional victory of Ukraine over any deal that would respect Russia's interests. Even politicians and commentators who criticize sanctions want them lifted because they hurt Western nations' interests. They haven't figured or don't dare to mention that the sanctions are unjust and unethical in and by themselves. 

 

The lies - dictator Putin has launched a war of aggression out of pure lust for power to restore the borders of the Soviet Union - seem to persist successfully. The American president dared to declare that Putin started a war completely groundless and without provocation. A transparent falsehood, a convenient political lie in the face of all evidence and the truth of the matter.

War is always ugly but sometimes inevitable. Neither its justification nor condemnation should be decided from the gut!

Being against violence does not make for a beautiful soul (Aristotle)

If we consider war as a continuation of political activity by other means, it never arises out of nowhere. Every war has a history that led to it. The topic of war is complex and delicate, and assessing its justification or inevitability in specific instances is even more so.

The general public often views war as the worst of all evils. The prevailing opinion is that the side that starts a war is inherently wrong and evil, while the side that resists is right and good. But as history and rational reflection show us, this is not necessarily true. If it were so easy to distinguish between right and wrong in war, many instances would reveal the United States and its Western allies as the aggressors. If the question of war could be answered based purely on emotion, we would never need to discuss the "Just War" theory, which has occupied philosophers from Augustine and Thomas Aquinas to Michael Walzer and others, including myself. I devoted my doctoral thesis (and the book based on it) to the morality and immorality of violence (and non-violence) on both individual, collective, and politico-military levels.

The evaluation of war and its political-ethical implications can be approached from two essential perspectives. First, what triggered the war, and what prompted political leaders or governing bodies to go to war? What is the causa iusta—the just reason, as the primary consideration of the principle of ius ad bellum (right to war)—that justifies or seems to justify waging war?

The challenge in assessing this crucial aspect is that the justification for the use of force—no matter when it occurs—is always subjective, based on the intentions of political leaders or decision-making bodies. To assess this adequately, observers—whether individuals, political administrations, or international bodies—must rise to a meta-level of thought, striving to judge the events leading to the dispute as objectively and impartially as possible. Unfortunately, this rarely happens, as pacifist and political-ideological emotions often cloud judgment. The United Nations, which should ideally play this role, seldom succeeds in maintaining this objective and impartial perspective.

Two essential criteria of transcendental moral philosophy (independent of experience and comprehensible by reason alone) for ius ad bellum are necessity and inevitability. War must always be a last resort, necessary and inevitable as the only option for resolving a conflict. While this is relatively obvious in cases of clear defense, it becomes more complicated in cases of preemption or prevention. A pre-emptive war represents a proactive breach of the peace, aimed at addressing an imminent threat or gaining a strategic advantage before an inevitable armed conflict. Pre-emptive war may be justified if all alternatives to the use of force have been exhausted, or if immediate military intervention is needed to prevent a much larger threat. Examples of pre-emptive military strikes include Israel's Six-Day War in 1967 and the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. In the latter case, the assumption that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) was used as a justification for war, though this proved to be inaccurate.

The ius in bello (law in war) is the second aspect of warfare to be evaluated. Do the warring parties and their military forces abide by the laws of war, such as the Geneva Conventions? Do they wage wars based on universal human principles that must not be endangered or abandoned, even in armed conflict? Do the warring parties distinguish between combatants and non-combatants? Are military targets the focus, with efforts made to minimize collateral damage? Are prisoners of war and wounded enemy soldiers treated in accordance with the Geneva Protocols, and are war crimes avoided?

While both sides appear to violate the ius in bello in the ongoing Ukraine war, only alleged Russian war crimes are widely reported in the West. For example, there is no mention of Ukrainian troops using civilians as human shields, choosing defensive positions in residential areas, or arming non-combatants in violation of martial law, actions that organized crime exploits to wreak havoc, while the blame is shifted to Russian forces. Furthermore, there is no mention of the restraint Putin has imposed on his armed forces, with a focus on military objectives. The West misinterprets this as incompetence on the part of Russian troops.

To understand the causalities that led to the war and provide criteria for its potential resolution, we must focus on the question of ius ad bellum—the reasons and motives for starting a war that lie within the hands of political leaders.