Israel Dreams of a Final Solution to its' "Iran Problem"

They, of all people, should reject the dream.

And Americans who support the idea of entering into a war to support it are trapping us into their vicious cycle of racial and religious nationalisms.

If Israel wants to control its' neighbors, let it build its' own Jewish Empire.

America has no Dog in this fight.  And no solution will EVER be "final".

R. R. Reno, "The Moral Logic of Finishing a War"

War seldom ends according to a satisfying script. Unconditional surrender—the banner headline of 1945—is a historical rarity, the exception, not the rule. More often hostilities conclude in the gray zone of ceasefires, armistices, and grudging diplomatic arrangements. Israel stands in that gray zone now. Its defensive campaign against Iran and the Iranian proxy network seems to have primarily met its battlefield objectives. From a military standpoint, Iran appears to be defeated. The harder task is to translate that success into a durable peace—without stumbling into George W. Bush 2.0, the grandiose dream of regime change by force.

Iran is not merely a rival pursuing normal state interests. For decades the Islamic Republic has subordinated economic development, and even internal stability, to a revolutionary ambition: the destruction of the Jewish state. Tehran spent treasure and reputation on uranium enrichment and terror franchises when it could have paved roads or built hospitals. That choice shapes everything that follows.

The savagery of October 7 and its aftermath are proof that détente with a sworn enemy can be fatal self-deception. Iran’s proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, fired their opening salvos to derail Israel’s tentative outreach to Saudi Arabia, and impose a new regional order tilted toward Tehran.

Few expected the Israel Defense Forces to dismantle Hezbollah’s vast arsenal of more than 100,000 rockets, yet in fall of 2024 they did so with shocking speed. Syrian collapse followed, removing another Iranian proxy and opening an aerial corridor to the heartland of the Iranian empire. Precision strikes have now gutted Iran’s military leadership. The war’s kinetic phase is therefore ending on unmistakable terms: Iran’s conventional power is devastated, its proxies are in disarray, and its remaining nuclear facilities lie vulnerable.

At moments like this, political imaginations can run hot, too hot. Some counsel marching on Tehran, imagining that toppled statues would inaugurate a pacified Middle East. That temptation must be resisted. Regime change adventurism—George W. Bush 2.0—is a recipe for exhaustion and backlash, as Americans learned in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel’s war aims have been defensive: meet a real, not hypothetical, existential threat and prevent Tehran from continuing to fund and arm its proxies that initiated hostilities. The Jewish state is closing in on achieving these defensive goals.

The just war tradition demands prudence at the end of war as well as at the start. As I see it, a settlement, whether by formal treaty or tacit modus vivendi, must impose three conditions:

- No nuclear pathway. Centrifuges disabled, inspections enforced.

- No ballistic missile expansion. Delivery systems are inseparable from warheads.

- No proxy rearmament. Hezbollah and Hamas must remain shells of their former selves.

These conditions are not maximalist fantasies. They are the foundation on which Israeli security—and regional peace—can be built. The peace will not be celebrated widely in the region. It is likely to be grudgingly accepted. But it can be achieved.

Because Iran’s theocrats may spurn any compromise that forecloses their revolutionary aspirations, the “deal” Israel seeks may be no deal at all, but rather something imposed by realities on the ground. Even so, diplomacy must finish the work that airstrikes began: reassure nervous Arab capitals, institutionalize new alignments, and clarify redlines that make further aggression too costly for Iran to contemplate.

Israel’s achievement is real and, in a way, astonishing. Yet the coming victory in this war, if God’s providence permits it, will lay a fresh burden on the consciences of statesmen. Jerusalem will have to model restraint. The present triumph must not decay into hubris. Prudent statecraft requires both justice and limits. Israel has avoided appeasement; may she forsake crusade.

Military successes are only the beginning of the end of conflict. Now is the time for the sober work of securing a peace that prevents the next October 7 while avoiding the folly of endless war.

Although nothing is assured, the quieting of the guns may be coming sooner than we had thought possible. Let the statesmen go to work.