Some adversaries will never change. The more you attempt to moderate their behavior, the more they resist. Eventually you find yourself trapped in an endless cycle of escalation.
Let me use an example from my own life. For ten years I taught public school. One thing quickly became obvious: good classrooms required discipline. Poorly managed classrooms descended into chaos.
I rarely had behavioral problems, but every so often a student would become chronically disruptive. My approach was always the same. I refused to reward bad behavior with attention. I calmly explained the consequences. The student received three warnings. If the behavior continued, the student was removed from the classroom and sent to the vice principal. The administration backed me because they knew I acted deliberately, not emotionally.
Most students corrected their behavior. A very small number did not. If the disruptions became chronic, they eventually became former students.
Why? Because my primary responsibility was not to the problem child. It was to the twenty-five students who came to learn.
Society operates the same way. We imprison violent criminals not simply to punish them, but to protect everyone else. Rights belong to the public as well as the individual.
The same principle applies internationally. Some regimes repeatedly demonstrate that they have no intention of honoring agreements or changing their conduct. At some point, continuing to negotiate with an uncooperative and recalcitrant actor merely prolongs the problem.
Sometimes the only effective solution is removal—not because it is the preferred option, but because every other option has failed. Protecting the larger community occasionally requires eliminating the source of the disruption.
We seem to have forgotten that uncomfortable truth.
We're using the tools of the Western world (negotiations, signed agreements) to deal with a medieval culture that does not recognize them. One key to the success of Western Civilization is the ability to at least somewhat control and constrain future actions through agreed-upon processes. This allows planning and investment in a reasonably predictable future that would otherwise be impossible, resulting in a net advancement of the society over time.
Conversely, the current leadership in Iran reflects a different culture— one where today I do what I agreed today, and tomorrow I'll do what I agree tomorrow. There is no future in this process; there is no pathway to peace through the Western process of negotiating agreements with these people. The only way to control and constrain what these people do is to force them, continuously and consistently, to do it— or to remove them from the picture altogether.
There is very little that Trump does that I don't approve. The present stand-off is one. The mullas and the Revolutionary Guard will never abide by any agreement, and prolonging the inevitable is to only their satisfaction. I understand about the Saudi's request and the midterms, but it's past time for the flocks of B-52s to eliminate the power structure, the oil fields, the coastal ports, and any military structure or Revolutionary Guard that we can find! That, in addition to targeting the next three or four levels of mullas would solve the problem permanently. If it had been done two or three weeks ago, the strait would be open, gas and fertilizer would be cheap, and Iran would be in the process of forming a new and friendly government.
“Removal” is an interesting option.
Some adversaries will never change. The more you attempt to moderate their behavior, the more they resist. Eventually you find yourself trapped in an endless cycle of escalation.
Let me use an example from my own life. For ten years I taught public school. One thing quickly became obvious: good classrooms required discipline. Poorly managed classrooms descended into chaos.
I rarely had behavioral problems, but every so often a student would become chronically disruptive. My approach was always the same. I refused to reward bad behavior with attention. I calmly explained the consequences. The student received three warnings. If the behavior continued, the student was removed from the classroom and sent to the vice principal. The administration backed me because they knew I acted deliberately, not emotionally.
Most students corrected their behavior. A very small number did not. If the disruptions became chronic, they eventually became former students.
Why? Because my primary responsibility was not to the problem child. It was to the twenty-five students who came to learn.
Society operates the same way. We imprison violent criminals not simply to punish them, but to protect everyone else. Rights belong to the public as well as the individual.
The same principle applies internationally. Some regimes repeatedly demonstrate that they have no intention of honoring agreements or changing their conduct. At some point, continuing to negotiate with an uncooperative and recalcitrant actor merely prolongs the problem.
Sometimes the only effective solution is removal—not because it is the preferred option, but because every other option has failed. Protecting the larger community occasionally requires eliminating the source of the disruption.
We seem to have forgotten that uncomfortable truth.
We're using the tools of the Western world (negotiations, signed agreements) to deal with a medieval culture that does not recognize them. One key to the success of Western Civilization is the ability to at least somewhat control and constrain future actions through agreed-upon processes. This allows planning and investment in a reasonably predictable future that would otherwise be impossible, resulting in a net advancement of the society over time.
Conversely, the current leadership in Iran reflects a different culture— one where today I do what I agreed today, and tomorrow I'll do what I agree tomorrow. There is no future in this process; there is no pathway to peace through the Western process of negotiating agreements with these people. The only way to control and constrain what these people do is to force them, continuously and consistently, to do it— or to remove them from the picture altogether.
There is very little that Trump does that I don't approve. The present stand-off is one. The mullas and the Revolutionary Guard will never abide by any agreement, and prolonging the inevitable is to only their satisfaction. I understand about the Saudi's request and the midterms, but it's past time for the flocks of B-52s to eliminate the power structure, the oil fields, the coastal ports, and any military structure or Revolutionary Guard that we can find! That, in addition to targeting the next three or four levels of mullas would solve the problem permanently. If it had been done two or three weeks ago, the strait would be open, gas and fertilizer would be cheap, and Iran would be in the process of forming a new and friendly government.