MPCooper

---

Today we learned that, tragically, three United States service members have been killed in Donald Trump’s war with Iran. Several others have been horribly injured. Across the Middle East there have been many casualties, including in Israel, and potentially hundreds in Iran—many of them civilians.

Perhaps the larger tragedy in all of this is how foreseeable these consequences were. This is what war inevitably leads to: death.

Yet if you listen to the reasoning used by Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, they claim they are waging this war in the name of peace.

What Does “Peace” Actually Mean?

For most people, peace means living in harmony—coexisting with others, accepting differences, and finding ways to avoid war.

But especially in right-wing political circles, and particularly among leaders of Trump and Netanyahu’s generation, there exists a much older idea: peace through strength.

This concept is often mistakenly attributed to Neville Chamberlain, but it actually goes back much further—to ancient Rome, and even earlier traditions of warfare.

The Roman phrase Si vis pacem, para bellum translates to: If you want peace, prepare for war.

The idea was simple: maintain a large standing army strong enough to deter enemies.

But even the Romans never confused the presence of an army with peace. They understood that armies existed because conflict was expected.

Ancient Ideas of Peace Through War

If you look at Hellenistic societies, earlier tribal conflicts, and even some conflicts today, one pattern emerges repeatedly.

When a society invaded another place in order to achieve “peace,” it often meant eliminating potential enemies entirely.

Men were killed. Anyone capable of revenge was eliminated.

Peace, in that worldview, did not mean harmony. It meant the absence of anyone left to fight back.

War was assumed to be inevitable because people expected it.

I hesitate to call war inevitable, because it should never be. War should always be the last resort.

But when societies adopt the old tribal idea that peace requires eliminating enemies completely, war becomes self-perpetuating.

This idea even appears in ancient religious traditions: destroy your enemies so that no one remains to challenge you.

History shows how unrealistic that is.

There will always be someone who disagrees with you, someone who resents you, someone who seeks power or revenge. Maybe not through war, but through politics, economics, or diplomacy.

Conflict never truly disappears.

The Illusion of Eliminating Enemies

That is the mindset driving leaders like Trump and Netanyahu.

They believe that if they eliminate their enemies, peace will follow.

But that is not how the modern world works.

We created diplomacy, international institutions, and the modern state precisely to prevent war from becoming the default solution to problems.

War is only inevitable when leaders decide they want war.

And the people currently in charge appear to believe war is the answer.

History tells us otherwise.

Does War Ever Solve Problems?

Some people will immediately raise examples like World War II or the American Civil War and argue that war sometimes solves problems.

But look at what happened afterward.

After World War II came the Cold War.

Then the Korean War.

Then the Vietnam War.

The Middle East became increasingly destabilized.

War may end one conflict, but it often lays the groundwork for the next one.

War tends to produce more war, not lasting peace.

Eventually someone must stop the cycle and pursue diplomacy.

Political Calculations

Some people believe Trump might try to use a war with Iran to cancel or manipulate elections.

That is very unlikely.

Even during the American Civil War and the two World Wars, the United States still held elections.

What this war is more likely to do is energize Trump’s political base.

The idea of “peace through strength” resonates strongly with the far right. While many on the right claim they oppose foreign wars, once the United States enters one—especially against a country like Iran—it becomes easier for them to rally behind it.

Attacking an Islamic country plays well with certain parts of that base.

Whether it will play well with the broader American public remains to be seen.

The Reality of Iran

Many Americans support the idea of removing Iran’s leadership or forcing regime change.

But few people truly understand what that would mean.

Iran’s political system has existed for more than forty years. It could not have lasted that long without some degree of support—or at least acceptance—from significant parts of the population.

There have certainly been protests and unrest in Iran over the years. Some of those protests were political. Many were economic, reflecting financial struggles that people across the world are experiencing today.

The government’s response has often been harsh and oppressive.

But unrest does not automatically produce revolution.

And there is little reason to believe that outside military strikes will suddenly cause the Iranian government to collapse.

That simply is not how societies work.

A War Without a Plan

Trump and Netanyahu have now dug the United States and Israel into a hole that will be difficult to escape.

The attack appears to have been carried out without a clear long-term plan—without an exit strategy.

And when wars begin without plans for how they end, they tend to spiral.

We can only hope that this conflict does not expand further.

But it will almost certainly lead to more deaths.

It may also lead to terrorist retaliation.

It will likely create economic instability.

Unfortunately, those outcomes are not hard to predict.

What War Will Not Bring

There are many things this war may bring.

More casualties.

More instability.

More conflict.

But there is one thing it will not bring.

Peace.