We've Seen This Enemy Before

Though we wish not to admit it, we are at war with Iran. We have been since the 1983 Hizbollah bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut. But the roots of our conflict are far deeper than that. They go back 2500 years to the invasion of the Pelopenesse and Attica by Xerxes and the Asian hordes of his Persian empire. Modern day Iranians hope to rekindle the legacy of the Achaemenids. Having once ruled most of the world, they believe it is in their power to do so again.

From our vantage point, this seems foolish. How can a backwater nation such as Iran challenge the United States? The idea seems absurd. But as I have often maintained, a nation's reasons for war only have to make sense to itself. And challenging the US for supremacy pays homage to their Persian history. In six short years, Cyrus (not yet the Great) had elevated himself from King of a small mountain tribe to absolute ruler of all the lands between India and the Aegean. He accomplished this through conquest, bribery and careful diplomacy. He was ambitious as he was capable.

America has been a superpower for so long that we take national pride for granted. Much as a Harvard graduate may hesitate before claiming his alma mater, many Americans (particularly well-traveled ones) hesitate before showing pride at our Country's greatness. Pride, to us, seems like a childish reason to go to war. But pride alone has started almost as many wars as it has started fights. Far more than being an acceptable casus belli, it is for the humiliated, the greatest one.

Iran, home to political intrigue for almost 3 millenia, has always known that it cannot beat the US in a straight fight. Despite all their bluster, in strict military terms, our military would make short work of theirs. So it has engaged in assymmetrical warfare and been quite successful at it. Hizbollah has since their inception been Iran's proxy, doing Tehran's bidding while given them deniability. This style of warfare goes back to the days of the Persian War as well. Western armies, as a legacy from their Greek ancestors, traditionally look for the decisive fight. Livy wrote that the Romans like their wars "big and short." But the armies of the East eschewed such warfare. They preferred skirmishes, picking away at their enemies over time until they were so weak that a convential fight was guaranteed victory. Our conception of war has a definite beginning and an end. Theirs is decidedly more flexible. 10 years between attacks is not ten years of peace. It is merely a lull in the ongoing battle.

The Persians were also adept at using bribes to weaken their enemy. Knowing how fractious the Greeks were and how tenuous their alliance, Persian made every attempt to win over the Greeks who were on the fence. They are still playing the PR game and by all accounts, they are far better at it than we are. There is something naive in the American character that makes it susceptible to such advances. Perhaps it's because we have been so coddled for so long. Embarrassingly, many of us travel to Europe for one summer and consider ourselves worldly. In times of peace, this is funny. In war, it is dangerous.

With the Persian way of war in mind, we must remind ourselves that there are no innocent Lebanese. They must be taught that tolerating Hizbollah will only bring them pain. No real government would tolerate such an overt challenge to their sovereignty unless they were in collusion. This is nothing new. Total war doctrine was introduced by General Sherman who wanted to teach the Southerners that supporting the war put their lives at risk too. Brutal it was, but it played a huge role in the ending of the Civil War thereby saving countless lives. The Israelis have been clear in telling the Lebanese to vacate any area about to be shelled. In doing so, they have greatly lessened the efficacy of their operations. But they do so to minimize the loss of human life, something that Hizbollah isn't the least bit concerned about.

Iran is using Hizbollah to attack Irael to take the world's attention off its nuclear program. If Hizbollah survives this exchange intact, so much the better. With expectations being what they are, all Hizbollah has to do is remain politically viable and it will have won in Muslim eyes. Israel could never win the PR game because Hizbollah doesn't wear uniforms. Of the dead Lebanese civilians, I wonder how many were actually noncombatants. No, Israel must win and do so decisively because a large part of its safety is found in the mental edge they possess. Arab armies that have achieved nothing but defeat and humiliation at the hands of the IDF. Because of this, countries who have publicly called for Israel's destruction have been hesitant to act beyond assymetrical warfare which can never cause the extermination of a country. But if Israel loses this aura of invincibility, if her mighty military is shamed in Arab (not Western) eyes, then the nations that want to wipe her from the planet might start getting ideas that they could succeed negatively affecting Israel's national security in a very real and substantial way.

I never liked the term 'War on Terror.' I've always thought it ill-advised to declare war on a tactic. We must see these attacks for what they are and treat them accordingly. They are assymetric incursions against the West sponsored by primarily by a State actor. It's an age old struggle and maybe one we will never settle. But we have to start seeing this for what it is- an actual full-blown war. An in this war, we have the one ally with the intestinal fortitude, understanding and competency to fight it. We do not have to rescue her- Israel can take care of herself. But she does need our support on the international scene where anti-Semitism is widely accepted. To constrain our ally is to embolden Iran which will only cause more problems for the world. Iran's day of reckoning will come. The sooner we make that happen, the sooner we can continue to advance globalization in the region and increase the standard of living for everyone.