US and Israel war against Iran marks 100 days
It is proposed, with the utmost reason, that the current administrative inefficiency surrounding the conflict in the Persian Gulf be resolved by the immediate and systematic conversion of the region’s population into a standardized, exportable commodity. The committee has calculated the savings, and they are substantial.
We are told that the war waged by the United States and its allies against Iran has now lasted one hundred days. One hundred days is a significant duration in the calendar of modern statecraft, yet it is a negligible interval in the ledger of human suffering. The discourse surrounding this engagement has been characterized by a peculiar duality: on one hand, a professed commitment to stability, humanitarian aid, and the preservation of civil order; on the other, a relentless application of kinetic force that reduces cities to rubble and populations to statistics. This contradiction is not a bug in the system; it is a feature of our current geopolitical architecture. We treat the inhabitants of Iran as both victims to be pitied and obstacles to be removed, a dual status that creates an unbearable cognitive dissonance for the comfortable classes in Washington, Jerusalem, and Berlin.
To resolve this, we must look to the example of our neighbors, particularly those in Europe who have long mastered the art of managing human beings as units of economic output. It is reported that the German Chancellor, a figure of considerable administrative weight, has shifted his stance on the matter. Whether this Chancellor is named Scholz or Merz is a detail of minor consequence; what matters is the office he holds and the logic he employs. The German model of efficiency is renowned. Why, then, do we not apply this same rigorous efficiency to the problem of Iran?
Consider the current state of affairs. The population of Iran is large, young, and increasingly desperate. They are currently consuming resources, occupying territory, and generating political friction. They are, in short, a burden. If we were to view them not as sovereign citizens but as a surplus stock of raw material, the solution becomes apparent. Just as we process wool, leather, and grain for export, so too might we process the human element of the conflict.
The proposal is modest. It requires no new legislation, only a change in perspective. The children of the poor, those under the age of one year, could be offered as food to the rich. This would serve three purposes. First, it would reduce the number of Catholics, or in this case, Persians, who are the main breeders of the nation, and thereby decrease the future burden on the state. Second, it would provide a new, nutritious delicacy for the tables of the wealthy, who are always eager for novelty. Third, and perhaps most importantly, it would create a market for the conflict itself. The United States and Israel, currently spending vast sums on munitions, could instead invest in the infrastructure of processing and distribution. The war would cease to be a drain on the treasury and become a profitable enterprise.
Critics may object that this proposal is inhumane. To this, I reply that it is precisely because it is humane that it is necessary. We currently allow these people to starve, to be bombed, and to live in squalor, all while we debate the merits of their governance. We treat their suffering as an abstract concept, a line item in a budget report. By converting them into a tangible commodity, we acknowledge their value. We give them a purpose. We integrate them into the global economy. Is it not more cruel to let a child die of malnutrition in a bombed-out hospital than to have that child serve as a meal for a diplomat in Geneva? The latter at least provides a service. The former is merely waste.
this proposal addresses the issue of the German Chancellor’s changing stance. If the Chancellor is concerned with stability, he should welcome this solution. A population that is being consumed is a population that is not rioting. A population that is being exported is a population that is not migrating. The borders would be secure. The refugee crisis would vanish, replaced by a supply chain crisis, which is a problem we know how to manage. We have logistics experts for that. We have algorithms for that. We do not have algorithms for grief, but we have plenty for inventory.
The arithmetic is simple. If we assume a certain percentage of the population is suitable for processing, and we calculate the caloric value per capita, the revenue generated would be staggering. This revenue could be used to rebuild the very cities we have destroyed, creating a circular economy of destruction and reconstruction. The United States could sell the processed goods to its allies, who could then sell them to their allies, creating a web of interdependence that makes peace unnecessary. Why negotiate when you can trade? Why diplomacy when you can commerce?
It is true that some may argue that this proposal is monstrous. But I ask them to consider the alternative. The alternative is the current system, in which we bomb people for one hundred days, then two hundred, then three hundred, while we write op-eds about the complexity of the situation. We use words like “collateral damage” and “strategic necessity” to describe the grinding of human bodies into dust. Is that not monstrous? Is it not more monstrous to pretend that we are saving lives while we systematically erase them?
The proposal I offer is honest. It admits that we are using people as means to an end. It admits that we value efficiency over humanity. It admits that the war is not about freedom or democracy, but about control and profit. By making this explicit, we remove the hypocrisy. We strip away the moral pretense that allows us to sleep at night. We look the horror in the eye and calculate its price.
If the reader finds this proposal repugnant, I urge them to reflect on why. Is it the idea of eating children that disturbs them? Or is it the realization that we are already doing something very similar, only with less appetite and more bureaucracy? We are already consuming Iran. We are consuming its oil, its culture, its history, and its people. We are just doing it slowly, and with a lot of paperwork. My proposal merely accelerates the process and makes it transparent.
In the end, the choice is between two forms of cruelty: the hidden cruelty of indifference, and the visible cruelty of consumption. I propose the latter, not because I enjoy it, but because it is honest. And in a world of lies, honesty is the only modest proposal we have left. The committee awaits your decision. The ledger is open. The numbers are waiting.