The Strait of Hormuz and the final solution

The Strait of Hormuz has been everywhere in the news lately. It has been described as the perfect geographical choke point and is currently the most controversial geopolitical crisis ravaging the world.

The Strait is a geological aberration that arose from a collision between the tectonic plates of the Arabian continent and the Eurasian continent, trapping massive amounts of hydrocarbons which became liquid gold and the wealth of the region. The basin also trapped water, creating the narrow Persian Gulf, which has the Strait as its narrowest point. On a regular basis, 20% of the world’s supply of oil and gas, and 30 percent of its fertiliser supply, pass through the Strait. It is the perfect stage for muscle flexing – between the nations that border the Strait, principally Iran and Oman, and the rest of the world.

Just how much things could go wrong has been demonstrated by the supply shortage and escalation in prices experienced virtually everywhere in the world since the current face off between the USA and Iran started and Iran made it known that it would be ‘blockading’ the Strait.

The Strait has become a game of ‘chicken’ between the Trump administration in the USA and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, with the Iranians enforcing an almost total blockade, and the Americans imposing a naval blockade on sea traffic in the region.

The drama is a metaphor for the unanticipated consequences of the conflict that developed in the region following the attack by Israel and the USA on the Islamic Republic of Iran, which started in lightning fashion with the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the decapitation of the recognised leadership of the nation, out of the blue, without a formal declaration of war. This was followed by wave after wave of assassinations of leaders and attacks on military and civilian, human and infrastructural, targets in Iran.

The Israelis have honed assassination into High Art. Historically, pre-emptive attack and assassination indeed have had survival value for their people in moments of existential risk, even if they are frowned upon by international conventions which are of relatively recent provenance. Still, it leaves an odd taste in the mouth when the President of the United States, the supposed leader of the ‘Free World’, exults publicly over the assassination of another country’s leaders. It is a measure of how much the world has changed in its morality and values in a few short years. Yes, the ‘international rules-based order’ was mostly hypocritical posturing, as Euro-American leaders from Kennedy to Obama carried out criminal activities, including ‘rendition’ and murder, in pursuit of ‘national interests’. At least they did not gloat about them.

The real focus of scrutiny here is not the unintended consequences of what is turning out to be an ‘Iran imbroglio’, but the psychology that led Israel and USA, in that order, to undertake such a massive and ‘total’ attack on Iran in the first place.

Clearly, the objective was ‘Regime Change’, for the purpose of getting a ‘Final Solution’ to ‘the Iran problem’.

Some facts are worth stating here. From the moment Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini arrived in triumph from exile in France to replace a fleeing Shah of Iran, and founded the Islamic Republic of Iran, a totalitarian religious hegemony has been imposed which shows a total lack of respect for accepted norms of international behaviour. First to mind was the incident that saw ‘revolutionary guards’ invading the embassy of another country – the USA, and seizing diplomatic staff as hostages.

Supposedly deriving authority from God, they assumed a right to assert that authority over people that did not share their beliefs, even pronouncing life-threatening ‘fatwas’ on total foreigners. To their own people, especially the youths, they have shown zero tolerance for dissent and have been ready to kill or imprison anyone expressing political or cultural opposition. Unforgiving harshness and lack of fear for personal safety is mixed with lack of compunction about inflicting harm on others. The nations in the neighbourhood live in fear of their intentions and surrogates.

There was well-founded worry in some circles that if the Iranians acquired nuclear weaponry, they would not hesitate to use it.

The Prime Minister of Israel, supposedly for these and other reasons, including a relentless mantra of ‘Death to Israel’, has long pushed for a ‘Final Solution’ to ‘The Iran Problem’. In Donald Trump, he finally found an American leader who was ready to underwrite his risky gambit.

The problem with ‘Final Solutions’ is that, in human history, they do not work.

There are two routes, equally faulty. One is to make the enemy permanently unable to carry out the feared action, such as waging war on their neighbours or developing a nuclear bomb. Unfortunately, no matter the severity of constraints imposed on a determined race, it is impossible to guarantee they will never carry out the feared action.

The other modality for ‘Final Solution’ is the ‘Amalek solution’, regularly referenced by Benjamin Netanyahu – which is to remove the enemy permanently from the face of the earth. Historically, it did not successfully annihilate the nation of Amalek, a failure which caused a king of Israel to lose his throne. It did not work for Hitler either, when the boot was on the other foot and he applied it to Jews in the Holocaust. It has not been known to work in ancient or modern times – that a people or a group was ‘totally erased’. Even NAZIs, ISIS and Al Qaeda have not been erased, despite their relatively small numbers, and their enemies are compelled to set more modest targets to keep them at bay.

The thinking behind the Iran War is fundamentally flawed, and realistically unattainable. The leaders of America and Israel might have done well to consult psychologists to align their expectations with the mind-set of their target people, an ancient civilisation on which has been grafted a ‘divine’ doctrine that embraces sacrifice.