It’s Not About ‘Starting’ a War, But ‘Ending’ It.

The political tension between world powers and world nuclear powers in the past few weeks have been intense and unpredictable. The unsettling atmosphere that the global community is going through nowadays is based on a political calculation of (us) versus (them). And in this context, the final estimation leaves no doubt for a two answer probability, its either being a victor or a  loser.

But the probabilities change and the estimation extends beyond the point of the equation when the counterparts of the contexts are two major nuclear powers who are threatening to use the same force and threat of their military equipments of destruction. It’s a catastrophic situation for not only the global community, but the world too. In both cases, despite the victors  and losers, the biggest loss will always be weighed on the global community as a whole.

The days and years of a particular warfare goes on violently and rapidly. Taking no accountability and measures of the violence used and the consequences that would lead to a humanitarian disaster. No, the major focus on this situation is based on destroying as much infrastructure as possible, and to kill as many civilians as one’s willing to take. For those are the trophies that one would be rewarded with when it’s all over.

Starting a war is easy, it requires the use of force and major tactical military skills accompanied by violence to ensure and secure one’s place in the battlefield and in the victor’s book of war. But the question that people never asked themselves was, how to end the war. Can violence ever stop and be tamed?. Can the bullets be controlled and destroyed?. Can the military forces and individuals be stopped l?. If the answer is yes, the theoretical space within the political and academic field is open and untamed. But as far as every rational human being and academic is aware of, the answer have always been a solid (no).

That said, the current situation of the American-Iranian conflict is situated within the dilemma of the international arena of how to put an end to the conflict before it starts, and how to stop it if it actually starts.

The American-Iranian context is a key issue for the global security and specifically the regional countries who will most likely to be affected when involved. As the threats from both sides are continuing and contributing to the conflict by emphasizing their military abilities and skills through the media, which is the first step towards the escalation of the threats, country leaders are in an international loop of finding a middle state of equal share and peace for everyone. Preparations have been made and alerts were being set just in case something happens unexpectedly. It’s an expectation that no one wants to wake up to and live through. Which is why the act of diplomacy and agreements are being settled on the table,  multiplied and duplicated just to showcase the importance of peace over the use of war and violence as an option.

As military cards have been introduced by both Iran and the United States, the probability of peace after the conflict starts is very low. For both countries are nuclear and both are world powers in their own framework of political authority. However, Iran threatened to use nuclear weapons as the final settlement of the conflict if an invasion took place. But prior to the use of nuclear weapons, American military bases would be attacked as a response to the first round of military actions. But that’s not the Tit for tat kind of possibility where everything will just end when both attack and target their objectives as a means to an honorable end. It’s just a beginning of an endless catastrophe that would erase human civilization.

Breaking each military strategy into pieces opens the way for a mindful decision that would answer the question behind (if) and (how). Taking the assumption of the United States’ first step towards militarily actions, Iran will respond immediately, leaving no doubt for any kind of diplomatic initiative to take part and place. Which means a continuation of the current military presence and actions that would extend geographically and extend methodically. The back and fourth violent elements would last for a time that has no expiration date, a timeline that would intensify the conflict and the subsequent period of war into the next few decades.

The exhaustion of the military forces would create a new phase of warfare that could take multiple phases of individual combat forces to lead the mission. Which in the event of an extended war with no object and ultimate goal of geopolitical and geographical superiority and domination, refers to the loss of the majority of military forces and the use of domestic resources as a military power for such operations.

The aforesaid brings back the context of the World Wars that have taken hold of the world from the start of the first bullet that led to an open zone of infinite targets and zones for attacks that left millions of casualties and damage in the world that are still being recovered from until this very day. But with the international community’s delegations of diplomatic approach that is being encouraged and challenged at the same time, the door of hope and a fair opportunity of cooperation between all of the involved parties is still a possibility to be considered among the options.

But from the media’s perspective, it seems that the threats are getting more severe by the day and the actuality of a war has become closer than ever. The use of the nuclear weapons is an inevitable part of the process and the contexts of the threats, which leaves no other options of further questions of what the next step might be, as it is clear that it is mass destruction and extension of the international security and the human existence as a whole.

Nuclear weapons would be the final answer laid down on the table of military options, and with it would come the collapse of human existence that would start slow and shallow in the long-run. The beginning of a first nuclear attack would drag a second attack and response either from Russia, China or any other ally within the nuclear arsenal. As for the aforementioned scenario of the nuclear arsenal’s ability to withstand and defend an ally of their choice, it’s important to notice that taking sides and opposing forces has a major probability of shifting and taking a different approach based on their own domestic and national security implications that changes in the day and transitions throughout the night. No ally is predictable and solid, change is an expected matter within the political arena.

A nuclear war and major counterattacks from nuclear forces and countries is not an anticipated outcome from neighboring states, it’s scenario that is likely to happen but is being forced outside the context of international warfare options due to the layers of uncertainty that will come back to life. The world have just begun to recover, not fully but partially from the pandemic and the global affects on the international community. And starting a new era of global nuclear war is not an option and easy path to be taken due to the repercussions and the repetition of the previous events that collapsed the world systems.

Not only that, but nuclear war means a long-term radiation effects that would affect the upcoming generations and cause catastrophic biological damage to the human population through their race, DNA, and genes. The biological effects would take different shifts that will eventually be the case of a new human species and an evolutionary change of the genetic makeup that is based on the biological process of life and the environment within.

Now, the question is whether these two factors of optional military operations and activities can be stopped when the first bullet has been shot?. If so, how?. From the extreme use of official military forces who will eventually decrease in number due to mortality and injury, all the way to the new phase of nuclear war and a new transition in the world system through genetic modification from the biological changes. How can one be prepared for such changes and evident human and species extension?. How can nuclear radiations be stopped?. Through diplomatic channels? Or the continuation of the progression until no further notice?

Starting the war is simple, and avoiding it requires discipline and patience through international diplomacy and cooperation. It’s a long game of push and pull, an ultimate strategy of reaching a consensus that would satisfy all involved parties without harming another. But when the first bullet has been released, putting it back into the gun is not a possibility to consider, not because of its nature, but the ultimate objective of the bullet going out of the shell and breaking as a result. It’s like trying to repair a broken glass, an action and outcome that would never happen due to the consequence of its nature.

The same goes for the upcoming threats and events of a possible conflict, the beginning would be a simple engagement based on violent acts through the involved parties. But if and when one looks for the middle ground of putting an end to it, the answer would not be found and the solution would just to roll down and go through the infinite chaos until further notice. And its death followed by human tragedy and sacrifice of an extension.