The Israeli/American-Iranian War: An Example of an Unfinished War

Wars do not end unless the causes of their outbreak are fully and comprehensively addressed, both the apparent and, more importantly, the latent ones. Latent motives are usually the root of conflicts and the primary reason behind the outbreak of wars. As long as these latent motives persist without a comprehensive settlement between the warring parties, the state of war between them remains open and ongoing. It sometimes subsides, but it resurfaces whenever one party senses a power gap over the other.

A comprehensive settlement that ends the war and the state of war between two warring parties (one party may be formed from a coalition of more than one power) is achieved in one of two ways: coercive and consensual. The coercive method ends the war if one party achieves a comprehensive and absolute victory over the other, leading to the unconditional surrender of the defeated party and its complete submission to the demands of the victorious party. However, if the outcome of the war is not decisive in favor of one party over the other, and victory is left open to mutual interpretation and future repercussions resulting from the discontent of the parties, especially the weaker party in the ongoing confrontation, then the door to war will not close. Rather, it will remain calm until the forces are regrouped to launch a new round of fighting. Therefore, ending the war in this case depends on finding effective, reliable, and permanent guarantees to ensure the continued superiority of the victorious party over the defeated party. Without these guarantees, the latent conflict is bound to re-erupt into a new war, after some time. The second method for ending the war and the state of war between the two conflicting parties, which results from an equal balance of power between them, is achieved by reaching an amicable settlement between them, resulting from a negotiation process that achieves part of each party's demands and prevents the opposing party from achieving all of its desired demands. This method reflects a mutual conviction and acceptance by both parties of the limited ability of either party to compel the other to fully and absolutely surrender to the other's demands. This leads both parties to agree to a minimum settlement, through which each party exchanges a portion of its demands, with each party convinced that the final outcome is the "best possible" outcome to achieve its interests. In this case, war and the state of war close their doors between the two parties once and for all, because the conflict between them has ended with a settlement favorable to both. It is worth noting that the two warring parties resorting to a consensual settlement may come after they reach the conclusion that they are unable to achieve military victory over each other.

****

Reflecting on the results of the two world wars may be useful in this context. In the first world war, the Allied powers were able to inflict a military defeat on the Axis powers, which had significant, albeit uneven, repercussions for the latter. Although the war led to the end of the Ottoman Empire and the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, its reduction of German power was not sufficient to ensure the continued effectiveness and reliability of the measures imposed on it, preventing it from regaining its strength and repeating the war again. Due to rifts in the Allied powers' positions regarding the extent to which these measures should be pursued to ensure that Germany's power was limited, but without humiliating it, the latter was able to slip through the cracks, rearm, and wage war once again. World War I was perhaps the most important example in modern history of an unfinished war. It was an unfinished war that left the door open to a war of completion, which erupted a little over two decades later in the horrific Second World War. The outcome of the Second World War was different from the First. This time, it achieved a comprehensive and absolute victory for the Allied powers over the Axis powers, confirmed by effective and reliable measures that permanently ensured their control and continued superiority over Germany and Japan in particular. Through the occupation and division of Germany, and the US dropping two atomic bombs on Japan, the unconditional surrender of both countries was secured. The Allied powers were not satisfied with the military victory; they followed it up by imposing new constitutions and educational curricula on both countries. This not only changed their political systems, but also brought about a much more profound and radical change, represented by a change in the political culture of the German and Japanese peoples. The transformation was intense and comprehensive, radically altering the political orientations of the Germans and Japanese, resulting in the two countries' membership in the Western club of democratic nations. With this result, World War II ended the conflict between the two warring parties and closed the door to the possibility of war breaking out again between them. Unlike the first war, which was incomplete, it was the conclusion of a conflict that has not been renewed since its conclusion. World War II was a complete war, ending the state of war that had existed between its two sides. *****

Although a fragile ceasefire was achieved twelve days after the outbreak of the Israeli/US-Iran war, and although the US President congratulated the world and tweeted announcing that it was over and over, this war is a clear example of an unfinished war. It has failed to achieve an effective, reliable, and lasting solution to its apparent causes, and the available evidence so far does not indicate that it will pave the way for a consensual settlement of its underlying causes.

It is true that Israel, with vital American support, was able to inflict significant damage on the Iranian nuclear program, which will disrupt and hinder it for a period of time. However, it has not yet been proven that they and America have been able to completely and permanently end this program. The same is true of the Iranian missile program, which, despite suffering a setback whose scope has yet to be verified, has persisted and has not been eliminated. Furthermore, this war did not lead to a change in the country's ruling regime, which has thus far demonstrated a high capacity for survival. The inability to bring about the desired change in these three vital matters may be due to the limited capabilities and strength of Israel, which, as was clear, requires direct American intervention to support it. Despite the American response and intervention to bomb the three nuclear facilities, it was also clear that the American president, for both domestic and foreign considerations, did not wish to become involved and embroil his country in a new war in the Middle East. Thus, the limitations of Israel's ability and power were revealed, not only to effect change, but also, fundamentally, to impose its hegemony over the region. This war, while damaging, left Iran as a powerful force in the region.

On the other hand, while Iran was able to inflict harm on Israel by launching successive missile barrages that reached all its territories and continued to rain down on it for days, it was unable to erase its presence from the map, as it had repeatedly threatened. Therefore, the long-awaited and much-anticipated Iranian response to the setbacks suffered by its allies and proxies in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria was not of the proportionate and expected magnitude. This also demonstrates the limitations of Iran's ability and power, which benefited greatly from remaining hidden for a long time. The threat of using force can sometimes be more effective and beneficial to the threat maker than actually using it. Despite mutual claims of victory by the three parties involved in the hostilities, the final outcome proves that, despite the disparity in the costs of war—human, material, and moral—between Iran and Israel, neither side was able to achieve a comprehensive victory, as happened in World War II. All indications also indicate that the deep-seated hostility between the two sides has remained unchanged, unaltered by the outcome of the lightning war. This, if anything, indicates that the conflict between the two sides is still raging, and that this war was not complete. Indeed, even if it has stopped for now, it will remain open to resumption in the future.

****

Describing this war as incomplete is neither a new nor a strange description, deviating from the nature of previous wars in the region. All previous wars, large and small, that have erupted in the region since the establishment of Israel, and by its actions, are incomplete wars. Each one represents a link in an extended chain of conflict that has not achieved a complete and comprehensive military resolution for one side over the other, nor a mutually acceptable settlement for the parties, due to their inability to achieve a military resolution. This is a case of the continued "hangover" of remaining in the twilight zone between the two positions, a "curse" that has afflicted the region as a result of what can be considered the "contagion" of World War I.

What makes the region's wars consistently incomplete is the failure of Israel, and its primary supporter the United States, to acknowledge that the underlying cause of the perpetual conflict in the region is the reluctance to reach the only correct conclusion: that finding a political settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that meets Palestinian standards is the necessary condition for regional stability. Beyond that, we will continue to live between rounds of incomplete wars, each one an attempt to complete a previous round that failed to complete. If Israel and America do not learn from what happened in this last war, and they most likely will not, then we will already be waiting for the next round of completion.