The bitterest of bitter choices!
All available options in the Gulf region are bitter and harmful, and there is no good option to dream of or strive to achieve. Among the proposed options is the military one, namely another US military strike against Iran. Such a strike would not bring down the regime; rather, all indications point to its continued survival, especially since the regime does not necessarily care about what happens to the friendly Iranian people or their civilizational achievements. It will, as usual, declare a victory of resilience as long as the regime and its militias remain ready, as always, to open fire on unarmed Iranian protesters. The European Union and dozens of countries have recently called on Iranian authorities to stop killing protesters.
***
Conversely, there is the option of relying solely on the peaceful approach and the so-called “steel siege” imposed by the United States on Iran. The problem with this option, which we agree with in principle if Iran were to embrace it and genuinely commit to it through rationality and moderation in its methods and stances to spare the friendly Iranian people the horrors of war, is that it has been reflected in wise positions that do not present demands that even wartime victors would not make. Instead, it involves appointing the most hardline leaders who believe in war as the sole means of resolving conflicts. Peace has its men among moderates and reformers, while war has its men among hardliners, as recently demonstrated by leadership appointments in Iran. In this context, we hope to learn from the hardline stances of our rival and adversary, Saddam Hussein, during the “Mother of Battles” and the “Mother of Decisive Clashes,” which destroyed Iraq.
***
The final station: The third option remains the state of neither war nor peace. In reality, many issues in the region have proven that this option may be the worst. The Palestinian cause, for example, has been destroyed since its first day by this gelatinous, indecisive approach. Palestinian leadership could have embraced a peaceful solution from the outset, implemented it, and accepted the two-state option championed by Great Britain and the Royal Peel Commission in 1937. This would have secured approximately 90% of the land for an independent Palestinian state, leaving 10% to the Jewish state, along with four advantages, as outlined in the explanatory memorandum of Lord Peel’s commission and the 1948 partition resolution. They would have gained nearly 45% of the land. The state of neither war nor peace persisted after the 1967 defeat, preventing us from benefiting from Israel’s subsequent willingness to return all Arab territories through acceptance of peace. Consequently, maintaining a state of neither war nor peace in the Gulf means the indefinite continuation of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, along with the ongoing siege on Iran, similar to the siege on North Korea since 1950 and on Cuba since 1962. These sieges have not toppled their regimes nor reduced tensions between them and neighboring countries, although they have severely harmed their besieged populations and strengthened their regimes, making their governments the sole source of survival for their peoples.
