On: Middle East: Kuwait hit by missiles and drones

The air has grown thick with the scent of gunpowder and fear in these parts, as if the old gods had finally grown weary of mortal games and decided to stir the pot themselves. Kuwait, that small but stubborn republic, has been struck - not by the great armies of Persia or Rome, but by the silent, creeping hands of drones and missiles, as if the enemy preferred to strike from the shadows rather than meet the citizen-soldiers in open field. And the United States, that great lion of the West, has answered with its own claws, tearing at the flesh of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. It is a dance of lions and foxes, but one where the fox moves first and the lion only reacts.

This is not the first time fortune has turned against Kuwait. Recall the old Persian kings, who would send their raiders to burn the fields and poison the wells of their neighbors, only to retreat before the citizen-militias could muster. The Persians knew their weakness - no fortress could hold against the will of a people who would rather die than surrender their land. Yet here, the enemy does not even bother with the old theatrics of siege or battle. They strike like thieves in the night, relying on the very weapons that once made Europe’s republics great: precision, speed, and the element of surprise. And the response? The great lion roars back, but does it roar with the cunning of a fox or the brute force of a beast that has forgotten how to think?

The question is not whether this is just or unjust - though I care little for the moralists who would have us believe that virtue lies in standing idle while one’s neighbors burn. The question is whether the actors here have the virtu to turn this tide. The United States, with its vast resources, could have built levees against such attacks long ago - early warning systems, hardened infrastructure, the kind of preparation that turns fortune’s flood into a manageable river. Instead, it has played the role of the fortress, relying on its walls to keep out the storm while its citizens grow complacent. And Kuwait? It has the arms of a republic - its people, its oil wealth, its alliances - but does it have the will to fight as a citizen-soldier, or will it cower behind the promises of foreign protectors?

The Iranian Guard’s strike was not the act of a desperate man but of one who knows the West’s weakness: it will retaliate, but only in ways that do not truly threaten the enemy’s core. The Guard does not fear the lion’s roar - it fears the lion’s hesitation. And so the cycle continues, as it has for centuries, where the strong do not think, and the clever do not hesitate.

If this were a republic worth its name - if Kuwait were not a client of empires but a true citizen-state - it would have long since built its own defenses, not just against the missiles but against the complacency that makes such strikes possible. It would have trained its people to fight, not just to pay taxes. It would have understood that the fox does not win by hiding in the dark - it wins by making the lion doubt its own claws. But no, the republics of this age are either too weak to govern themselves or too busy playing at empire to remember what it means to be free.

And the United States? It has the lion’s strength, but it lacks the fox’s cunning. It strikes back, but not with the precision of a surgeon - with the recklessness of a man who has forgotten that every blow must be measured. The result? More blood, more fire, and still no end in sight. Fortune has turned, and the question is whether the actors here have the virtue to adapt - or whether they will drown in the flood they could have controlled.