The critics of the U.S. military aggression against Iran are fond of saying that this war is one of choice, implying that the U.S. did not need nor have to start it. Regardless, all wars once they begin they become wars of necessity, even if the articulation of the necessity at the start is spotty at best. The proponents of U.S. military action against Iran have taken to mischaracterizing this armed conflict by using a phrase akin to Vladimir Putin’s “special military operation” against Ukraine. Some have gone as far as to suggest that it is Iran that has declared war on the U.S. going as far back as the inception of the IRI in 1979. The chants of death to America and Israel and wishes to wipe the latter of the map have not helped in engendering a sympathetic sentiment among the American and Israeli politicians for the Iranian regime in the last four decades plus.

There is such a thing as inviting hostility and the IRI has done just that for the last four decades plus. They are fond of referring to Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran as a war imposed on Iran by Iraq (jang-e tahmili). Was Saddam’s war against Iran a war of choice? He could have chosen not to invade Iran, but did he really have any other choice when the messianic leaders of Iran were hell bent on exporting their revolution to some neighboring countries, especially to countries that had a good number of adherents to Shi’a? By any fair measure, IRI invited Saddam’s aggression. How did that Iraq-Iran War (1980-1988) finally end? By Ayatollah Khomeini “sipping from the poisonous chalice” and finally agreeing (surrendering) to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 598 of 20 July 1987 when it became clear a whole year later when he realized that any further abstention would mean further gains by the Iraqi forces and untold consequences for the regime.       

What is indisputably clear is that to end a war is a matter of choice by the aggressor, particularly if it has degraded the adversary’s war machine such that it will not be able to reconstitute itself any time soon; it is also a matter of choice for the battered adversary to know when to give up. The choice that the Iranian regime now faces is between survival and annihilation. To survive means it has to surrender, as there is no realistic and meaningful prospect of material help from such fair-weather “friends” like Russia and China needed to prolong the conflict. If the choice is to be martyred/annihilated then the IRI is on the right course and it will dissolve as the shortest regime that ruled Iran since 1789.

Weather to surrender or not is also a question of choice informed by necessity. In World War II, the Japanese surrendered to the Allies Forces aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay as did the Germans in Reims (France), and Italy in the Armistice of Cassibile. They all did so because they saw no other alternative for self-preservation.

The remaining question for the IRI is therefore this: “Does the theocracy ruling Iran care enough about the country of Iran and its inhabitants to change its messianic ideology in favor of the secular precepts set forth in Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, among which are sovereign equality of all states; settlement of international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered; and refrain from use or threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state? A similar question should be put to the leaders of Israel and the United States who are in pursuit of their own brand of messianic quest.

Messianic rulers of Iran are devoid of nationalistic sensibilities. They are motivated by faith in the service of which martyrdom is a welcome price to pay. The question for them should be this “Would there be any faith or faithful left when the Judeo-Christian crusade on Shi’a Islam is done?”  

While the choice between surrender (survival) and annihilation faces the regime in Tehran, President Trump’s idea of victory is to see Iran “tap out” as if this whole affair has been a UFC/MMA match. Benjamin Netanyahu is not given to a “tap out” scenario; he wants for the IRI the same fate that befell the Philistine giant and he could not care less if Iran as a country disintegrated or perished in the process.