Seeing into the future

open systems

I had a hard time sleeping last night as hearing that the Islamic Revolutionary government in Teheran sent hundreds of drones and missiles against Israel was disconcerting, at best. The United States supplements Israel’s serious indigenous defenses with superb technology but, as Carl von Clausewitz so profoundly reminds us any time we open his masterpiece, On War, stuff goes wrong in the fury of warfare. Von Clausewitz certainly describes it more eloquently by using ‘friction’, those instances where things ought to proceed in a certain manner but break or get forgotten or don’t work as expected or some action calling to mind the physics of friction—some action causing a reaction failing to allow the action to meet its intended objective. Von Clausewitz is the writer most often illustrating that actions create consequences. (Friction intervened for me yesterday as I sent you a column with an unacceptable number of typos for which I apologise. The revised column online caught them, I think.)

Human behaviour is particularly problematic because, as I have observed several times, humans introduce so vast number of variables to any equation. Humans are not, as far as I can tell, driven by algorithms but the ability to think, respond, project, err, succeed, before recycling through the entire list again and again and again makes decision-making hard to predict. No accurate crystal balls exist. Einstein supposedly said doing the same thing repeatedly yet expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity. Sure except each time we redo the same action, we are actually choosing off a greater data base about the topic even if we choose to ignore the additional information. Humans have the capacity but not always the inclination to embrace logic and predictable actions.

This all means none of us knows where this spark will lead the world. Nations, through their governments, pursue their own national interests, usually elevating defending the homeland to the top of the list (The CCP elevates its own survival above protecting the homeland but they are not today’s topic). Economic prosperity is usually equally important for our leaders but not necessarily in other countries. Beyond those two objectives, states are off on a truly unpredictable tract.

Israel’s survival is paramount, because of the horrors of anti-Semitism throughout Jewish history. It’s hard to find another national interest that comes close. Iran certainly worries about defending national territory but the mullahs imposing the Islamic Revolutionary regime over that nation since 1979 clearly also worry about external forces or their own population ousting them, thus ending their theocracy.

We do not know whether Israel will consider the almost complete deflection of the attack sufficient. We have no clue whether the mullahs were disheartened by the almost complete failure to damage Israel. We also have no idea how this will affect Israel’s relations with the growing list of states bent on talking Netanyahu out of the attack on Rafa. We are uncertain how other states, reacting the civilian humanitarian crisis in Gaza, might drop their pressure on Israel. There are simply too many variables for any certainty about anything at all. We similarly have no guarantee how Arabs in the region will respond as they are hardly friendsly with Iran (except Syria and Iraq along with the various terrorist groups in Yemen or Lebanon)

The one thing we can be thankful for is that Israel, one of the two primary actors, is a vibrant democracy. The type of government does not guarantee any regime will make perfect choices; perfection does not exist in the international system or in enterprises involving humans for the reasons I noted earlier.

However, democracies thrive on openness, accountability, and the involvement of those the leaders represent. The reason authoritarians of any stripe shut down the press is because it is the oxygen of a representative system. Authoritarian wannabes try to cast doubt on forces which pursue accountability to prevent anyone from knowing what measures these individuals intend to institute to hide their ultimate goals.

Israel is a proportional representation democracy, meaning a wide range of political parties vie for seats. A panoply of newspapers, media outlets, and online access points offer competition to report news, probably elevating the quality of that news. Those reporting outlets provide a range of analysis sustaining the nation’s interests in the policy process. This breadth makes claims of ‘fake news’ harder to use since the interplay between the political parties and the media is a constant monitoring of government’s declarations.

The voter must remain engaged in the system but in countries like Israel, the prospect of the government making decisions without awareness of the voter’s preferences is an unacceptable one. Voter apathy on something like the choices for existential survival of Israel seems so unlikely. Parliamentary systems change out leaders more often than our republican (small r) government does.

Iran’s government may be no more popular than Netanyahu personally but the mullahs likely lack confidence they can share their thinking with a population that has regularly protested internal policies as occurred during September 2022. Protestors demanded that women have greater rights to honour the memory of Mahsa Amini, a martyr because the religious police accused her of dressing too provocatively. Preferring not to allow a repeat performance for any reason, the Islamic Republic will continue to operate behind closed doors. Choices, without popular support, run tremendous risks of increasing violence and even the possibility of introducing nuclear weapons into this volatile conflict to show the regime’s strength.

Our own decision-making, like Britain’s or France’s or Tokyo’s, will be fairly overt even if it does not satisfy everyone. But we are not the pivotal players; the Israeli and Iranian leaders will pursue what they believe best supports their interests in enduring struggle over the future of the region. The Biden (or any other) administration can offer its preferences but without a guarantee the relevant actors will listen.

When people say we ought break relations with those governments we oppose, we abdicate any instruments except massive use of the military to affect any outcomes. Iran is not the post-Shah basket case it was as it suffered strikes from Iraq in the early 1980s, either. We have little influence over the Iranian part of this equation.

Such a tense, unpredictable and dangerous world we confront right now.

What are your thoughts on the evolving problems in the Middle East? Are Americans like me overly concerned? What instruments and leverage would you consider if you were in the Biden White House? I genuinely seek your thoughts.

Thank you for reading this and any ACC entry. You consideration of these topics is important to hear.

It’s been a spectacular day on the Creek. The bleeding hearts are in full bloom on the patio and our walk around the oyster path a few minutes ago showed the increased activity as boats begin sailing after their repose over the winter.

Be well and be safe. FIN

Jon Gambrell, ‘Iran is responsible for the ‘physical violence’ that killed Mahsa Amini in 2022, UN finds’, apnews.com, 8 March 2024, retrieved at https://apnews.com/article/iran-mahsa-amini-protests-un-report-366a199119720e69696a123560ef4018

Carl von Calusewitz, On War. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.