A senior Iranian military officer said renewed fighting with the United States is "likely" following Trump's dissatisfaction with an Iranian negotiating proposal.
It is proposed, with the utmost reason, that the current diplomatic stalemate between the United States and Iran be resolved not through the tedious and expensive machinery of negotiation, but through the immediate and systematic liquidation of the negotiating parties themselves. The committee has calculated the savings, and they are considerable.
We are told by a senior Iranian military officer that renewed fighting is “likely” following the dissatisfaction of President Trump with an Iranian proposal. This statement, delivered on a Saturday, suggests a certain casualness regarding the preservation of life that is both alarming and, upon closer inspection, inefficient. If the likelihood of war is high, and the cause of that war is the inadequacy of a proposal, then the logical conclusion is that the proposal was the problem, not the solution. To continue to draft proposals, to refine them, to send them across the Persian Gulf in encrypted cables, is to engage in a form of administrative procrastination that costs billions in defense spending and thousands of lives in collateral damage. It is a waste of resources to keep the negotiators alive when their very existence is the catalyst for conflict.
Consider the arithmetic of the situation. A single diplomatic cable, poorly phrased, can trigger a naval blockade. A single tweet, poorly timed, can trigger a missile strike. The cost of maintaining the diplomatic corps on both sides is immense. They require salaries, security details, and the constant upkeep of their egos. If we were to remove the negotiators from the equation, we would remove the friction. Without a proposal to reject, there can be no dissatisfaction. Without dissatisfaction, there can be no “likely” war. The peace would be absolute, silent, and permanent.
One might object that this is a harsh measure. But let us look at the alternative. The alternative is the current state of affairs, where two nations posture, threaten, and occasionally fire missiles at each other while pretending to seek a diplomatic off-ramp. This is not peace; it is a managed conflict, a slow bleed of stability that keeps the oil markets jittery and the defense contractors profitable. It is a system designed to perpetuate itself. The negotiators are not solving the problem; they are the problem. They are the engine of the conflict, generating heat and noise without producing motion.
If we were to adopt a more rational approach, we might consider that the “Iranian negotiating proposal” mentioned by the officer is, in fact, a trap. It is a document designed to be rejected, thereby providing the pretext for the very war the officer predicts. In this light, the officer is not a predictor of doom, but a participant in a script. He knows the proposal will fail. He knows Trump will be dissatisfied. He knows the fighting will follow. To continue to play this script is to be complicit in the destruction. The only way to break the script is to remove the actors.
the economic implications are profound. The global oil market is currently held hostage by the mere possibility of conflict. Prices fluctuate based on rumors, on tweets, on the vague assessments of military officers. If the conflict were to be resolved by the removal of the negotiators, the uncertainty would vanish. The markets would stabilize. The savings in speculative trading alone would outweigh the cost of the operation. We are paying a premium for the drama. We are paying for the suspense. It is a tax on our anxiety, levied by the incompetence of diplomats who cannot agree on the font size of a treaty.
Some may argue that this proposal is monstrous. They will speak of human rights, of the sanctity of dialogue, of the need for patience. But what is patience but the delay of justice? What is dialogue but the prolongation of suffering? The people of Iran and the people of the United States are not suffering because of the war; they are suffering because of the threat of war. The threat is a heavier burden than the event. It hangs over them like a cloud, dampening their spirits, restricting their movements, and inflating the price of gasoline. To remove the threat is to remove the cloud. It is a humanitarian act, in the truest sense.
We must also consider the precedent. If we accept that a proposal can be so inadequate as to justify war, then we must accept that the proposer is responsible for the war. The proposer is the aggressor. The rejector is the defender. This logic, if followed to its conclusion, means that every failed negotiation is an act of aggression. Therefore, the negotiators are combatants. And combatants, by the laws of war, are legitimate targets. It is not cruelty to target combatants; it is procedure.
The committee notes that the specifics of the Iranian proposal have not been disclosed. This secrecy is suspicious. Why hide the terms of a peace agreement? It suggests that the proposal was never intended to be accepted. It was intended to be a provocation. In such a case, the proposer is acting in bad faith. Bad faith must be punished. The punishment should be swift, decisive, and final.
It is a small price to pay for peace. The lives of a few diplomats are a negligible cost compared to the lives of thousands of soldiers and civilians who would be lost in a full-scale war. We are trading the few for the many. This is the basic principle of utilitarian ethics. It is the principle that underpins all modern governance. To reject it is to reject reason itself.
The reader may feel a chill at this proposal. This is good. It means the reader is still capable of feeling. But let us not mistake sentiment for logic. The logic is sound. The proposal is modest. It asks only that we stop pretending that diplomacy is working when it is clearly failing. It asks that we stop paying for the privilege of being threatened. It asks that we take control of our own security, rather than leaving it in the hands of men who write bad proposals and send them into the void.
The committee awaits your response. It is hoped that you will see the reason in this proposal. It is hoped that you will recognize the efficiency of the solution. It is hoped that you will not let sentiment cloud your judgment. The stakes are high. The stability of the Middle East is at risk. The global economy is at risk. The only thing standing between us and chaos is the willingness to act.
Let us not be afraid to act. Let us not be afraid to be reasonable. Let us not be afraid to save the world by saving it from itself. The proposal is on the table. The clock is ticking. The officer has spoken. The President is dissatisfied. The war is likely. The only question is whether we will continue to pay for the privilege of being afraid, or whether we will finally do something about it.
The committee recommends immediate action. The savings will be substantial. The peace will be lasting. The logic is irrefutable.