On: Forever at war? US, Iran trade blows as Israel pushes deeper into Lebanon
Another day, another war. They speak of a four-week campaign as if it were a fixed object, a thing to be promised and delivered. But a campaign depends on the enemy’s will, which depends on the supply of weapons, which depends on the calculations of distant capitals, which depend on the perceived will of the enemy. It is a circle of dependencies, not a line to be drawn on a map. To speak of its duration as inherent is to mistake the wave for the water.
The shrugs at the overnight volleys interest me. The volley is an event. But the shrug is the recognition of a pattern. The pattern depends on the repetition of the event. The event depends on the expectation of the pattern. Which is more real? The explosion, or the weary expectation that made it a shrug and not a scream? Both are empty. The explosion is not inherently terrifying; its terror depends on the context of peace, which is absent. The shrug is not inherently indifferent; its indifference depends on the context of saturation, which is present. They co-arise.
They trade blows. “The United States” strikes. “Iran” retaliates. But what is “the United States” in this strike? It is not the land. It is not all the people. It is a decision made by a few, enacted by machines, justified by a narrative of deterrence. That narrative depends on the perception of an enemy called “Iran.” And what is “Iran”? It, too, is a narrative, a coalescence of leadership, ideology, and historical grievance, firing a projectile. The blow exists. But the “trader” of the blow? A name for a web of conditions. To see the name as the actor is the error. The blow arises from the whole web of hostility, not from an independently existing “nation.”
They push deeper, violating the ceasefire. The ceasefire was said to exist. But its existence depended wholly on the conduct of the parties. The conduct changed. Therefore, the ceasefire, which never had inherent existence apart from that conduct, is now said to be violated. But you cannot violate a phantom. You can only reveal that the conditions for its conventional reality have dissolved. The promise of a campaign, the shrug at the volley, the trading of blows, the violation of the peace - all are waves on the same sea of dependent origination. To be angered by one wave, or to place hope in another, is to be deceived by the form.
And this analysis? It, too, is a raft. It is useful for crossing the river of clinging to fixed positions - of “us” and “them,” of “war” and “peace.” But upon reaching the other shore, one must not carry the raft of analysis on one’s back and proclaim it the territory. The Middle Way is to see the conventional reality of the suffering, and the ultimate emptiness of the concepts that fuel it, without clinging to either side. Today, the suffering is very conventional. The concepts are very heavy. The raft feels fragile. But it is the only one I have.