On: What we know about the latest exchange of fire between the US and Iran

Diary Entry, this 19th Day of October, 2024

The news from the Strait of Hormuz reads like a farce, though the consequences are not amusing. The President insists a ceasefire holds, while shots are exchanged. Both sides offer “conflicting views.” Of course they do. When two parties claim a fire is both out and burning, a child knows the truth: the embers were never properly banked.

This is the folly of declaring peace where none was built. A treaty is not a piece of parchment; it is a machine for keeping the peace. If the gears grind and sparks fly the moment it is set in motion, the design is faulty. One does not declare a clock keeps good time while it strikes noon at midnight.

I am put in mind of the Junto’s rule: never contradict flatly. Better to say, “I apprehend the matter may be otherwise,” and state your case. Here, both sides contradict flatly, and the matter - being shot at - is rather difficult to apprehend otherwise. A “conflicting view” of a cannonball’s trajectory is generally resolved by the hole it leaves in the hull.

The Strait is a vital artery of commerce. To let posturing and pride constrict it is the height of poor economy. A shopkeeper does not stand in his own doorway shouting at the merchant across the street while customers turn away. He makes a quiet arrangement, if he is wise, so both may profit.

They call it diplomacy. I call it a failed experiment. The hypothesis - that loud threats followed by thin agreements would produce stability - has been tested. The result is more fire. When an experiment fails, an honest man records the result, adjusts his apparatus, and tries anew. The stubborn man insists the smoke is merely a “conflicting view” of air.