The conflict between the United States and Iran is currently the focus of intense international attention and is being discussed and interpreted in various ways. In Europe, most observers view it as a mistake, preferring the status quo of a month ago, when Iran was apparently continuing its drive toward the development of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Instead, a historical and objective analysis seems to provide a valid justification for this military intervention, which should not be viewed as a Trumpian anomaly, but rather as an evolution of the balance of power in the Middle East—a development that is understandable and inevitable, given the region’s history, the Khomeini revolution of 1979, and the deep division and hostility between Islam’s two main sects: Sunnis (90%) and Shiites (the remainder, mainly in Iran). From this perspective, the ongoing military actions can be interpreted not as a new war, but as an attempt to end a war that began in 1979, before it degenerates into an uncontrollable escalation.
Let us therefore try to contextualize the current situation with some historical data and objective reflections.
Barbary piracy
Relations between the United States and Islamic countries began to become strained as early as the last decades of the 18th century, due to attacks by the Barbary States of North Africa on American ships, resulting in the capture and enslavement of prisoners while awaiting the payment of ransoms. In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson sought to establish a dialogue with these states and met with the ambassador of Tripoli—Sidi Haji Abdrahaman—at his home in London. The Libyan ambassador—who was extremely courteous and hospitable—pointed out that, to prevent further acts of piracy, the U.S. must pay a substantial sum to his government and, under the table, to him personally. Faced with the polite objections of Adams and Jefferson, who noted that the U.S. had in no way provoked the government of Tripoli, the ambassador replied that piracy was based on the rules of the Quran, and that the peoples of nations that did not recognize the supremacy of Islam were sinners, and that the government of Tripoli was therefore authorized to wage war wherever they could find them, to enslave all prisoners, and that every one of their men who was killed in battle would surely go to Paradise. Imagine Jefferson’s stunned expression—a half-agnostic, libertarian Enlightenment thinker who had previously read the Quran and defended the constitutional rights of Muslims—upon hearing these shocking statements, which, unfortunately, are still heard today in some mosques, even in Europe.
The problem of piracy and the enslavement of American citizens continued for decades, until the early 19th century, with the Barbary Wars of 1801–05 and 1815–16 against these North African states. Even today in the U.S., people sing “The Marines‘ Hymn” (“From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli”) commemorating the Battle of Derna in 1805, in which U.S. Marines marched a thousand kilometers to capture a port city in Tripoli, Libya, bringing the First Barbary War to an end. It is the oldest official song of the U.S. armed forces.
The Long Decline
From the Napoleonic Wars until the end of World War II, Islam underwent a sharp decline, due to various factors, including the decaying Ottoman Empire, the indifference of Islamic leaders toward modernization and technology, and the humiliations imposed by European colonialism.
But from 1945 onward, things changed, with the anti-colonial wars and the creation of the State of Israel galvanizing opposition in Arab streets. Secular leaders then emerged, such as Nasser in Egypt and Bourguiba in Tunisia, who knew how to stir up the nationalism of the masses and repress religious extremism, even through violence.
Speaking of Nasser, it might be interesting to watch a video from 1958 in which, at a rally, he mocked, with sharp humor, the religious extremists who wanted to impose the hijab on women. The reaction of the general public at the time is significant.
A picture is worth a thousand words
Sometimes it is the little things that tell us a lot. Let’s look, for example, at a photo of Egyptian female students in the 1950s:
There are no veiled women to be seen, whereas today they are in the vast majority. And then let’s look at Iranian flight attendants in the 1960s:
And then let’s admire the “evolution” of Afghan women; from yesterday (1960–70)
to today (source: Taliban’s Erosion on Women’s Rights: A Timeline)
What happened?
The Turning Point of 1979
Customs in the Islamic world have changed significantly, with a major shift beginning in 1979, due to the Iranian Revolution, which did not merely influence the Shiite world but spread throughout the entire Muslim world, unsettling and worrying Sunni countries, particularly their leaders in Saudi Arabia.
Other significant events followed. In particular, Erdogan’s Islamist victory in Turkey in 2014—a country that, following Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s revolution, had abolished the Sultanate and, in 1923, established a secular, constitutional republic. Now Turkey is in the hands of a “strongman,” famous for declaring in 2015: “The minarets are our bayonets, the domes our helmets, the mosques our barracks, and the faithful our soldiers. My religion awaits this army.”
And finally: the “Arab Spring” of 2010–2012, which sparked so much enthusiasm and hope. But at the critical moment, when the Egyptian people were given the opportunity to vote democratically in 2012, 51% of voters chose Mohamed Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood, a group founded in 1928 that provided the intellectual breeding ground for al-Qaeda leaders Ayman al-Zawahiri and Bin Laden. It was the latest demonstration that, unfortunately, democracy rarely works in certain countries and cultures.
And the U.S.?
The U.S. was founded in the late 18th century, articulating three principles that were to govern the state: the defense of citizens’ lives, their liberty, and their pursuit of happiness (in the 18th century, this “pursuit” essentially meant the protection of their savings and property). In the early decades of the Republic, faced with the Napoleonic Wars, the U.S. had entrenched itself in its own world, turning a blind eye to European wars and tensions. Then, in 1823, they formulated the Monroe Doctrine: a U.S. foreign policy stance opposing any foreign interference in the Western Hemisphere (including Greenland…), arguing that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers was a potentially hostile act against the United States.
Then came the two world wars, in which both President Wilson (in 1916) and President Roosevelt (in 1940) were elected on promises to stay out of European conflicts. But then—as we know—things turned out differently…
By the late 1940s, the U.S. found itself inevitably drawn into the Cold War—essentially a containment of Soviet expansionism. Relations with the Islamic world were based on three key alliances: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Turkey was then ruled by secular anti-communists and had joined NATO in 1952. It remained a loyal ally for decades (more loyal than the French…). Saudi Arabia was important (and still is) for its oil reserves and its strategic geographical position. For the same reason, so was Iran, ruled from 1941 to 1979 by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Persia.
The fall of the Shah in 1979 and the advent of a Shiite theocracy in Iran shook the region and threw the U.S. and the West into disarray. The physical violence with which the Iranian mullahs ruled, the killings of political and religious opponents—including thousands of Iranian communists who had aided them during the revolution—the dire threats of genocide against Israel, the United States, the West, and their Sunni “brothers”—all of this, in short, revealed their desire for a “holy war” against everyone and the certainty of Paradise for their fallen. It is extremely dangerous to have enemies against whom deterrence cannot be used. The author has had conversations with Muslims—including professionals and intellectuals—who did not hesitate to argue that a nuclear exchange with Israel was acceptable, despite the terrible consequences for both sides.
And Israel?
The U.S. had remained relatively indifferent to the birth of the State of Israel in 1948. It was the Soviet Union that was the first country in the world to grant legal recognition to Israel, just three days after the state declared its independence. And this occurred despite the official view of Zionism, in Lenin’s words, as “bourgeois nationalism.” A year earlier, on May 14, 1947, Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko had declared his country’s support for the UN Partition Plan for Palestine, acknowledging the “exceptional pain and suffering” of the Jews during World War II. The USSR maintained this recognition, urging Czechoslovakia to supply arms to Israel, which proved crucial in the defense against the invading Arab armies.
Clearly, Russia hoped that the new State of Israel, then dominated by Marxist and secular leaders, would bring a revolutionary message to a region dominated by conservative monarchies. Things, however, turned out differently, as we know.
The U.S. was not only indifferent toward the State of Israel but at times hostile. In 1956, following Nasser’s nationalization and (illegal) expropriation of the Suez Canal, the Israeli army, in secret agreement with the governments of France and the United Kingdom, crossed the Egyptian border and began the invasion of the Sinai Peninsula. From a military standpoint, the operations unfolded exactly as planned. Politically, however, the attack was a disaster. U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower strongly opposed military intervention against Egypt. Eisenhower put economic pressure on London and threatened sanctions, forcing the allies to withdraw and marking the end of British/French colonialism. Even today, historians debate whether, in this case, Eisenhower made a wrong or an excessive move.
Israel was forced to withdraw from all occupied territories, but managed to severely damage the Egyptian army, destroying much of the equipment it had accumulated during previous years of rearmament. The governments of France and the United Kingdom, on the other hand, were humiliated and forced to back down under international pressure.
Fast forward to the present day
Today, there is war. The U.S.-Israel alliance is stronger than ever. And following events such as the terrorist attack on the U.S. on September 11, 2001, and the massacre of Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, a segment of the West has realized that its survival is in danger, with external enemies increasingly and convincingly threatening the use of nuclear weapons, and internal enemies downplaying these dangers.
Even during the Cold War, we faced threats of destruction—threats that were very credible, given the actions of Communism in all the countries where it had taken hold. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev famously told us in 1956, “We will bury you,” but the context was different, and Khrushchev was known for his crude and colorful style and his theatrical gestures, such as taking off a shoe at the UN and throwing it on the table. But we managed to contain Communism through deterrence and the old Latin wisdom: si vis pacem para bellum.
Today, however, the situation is different. Some enemies of the West, such as Chinese leader Xi Jinping, are rational, willing to engage in dialogue and make compromises, and seem to understand that military adventures (such as the invasion of Taiwan) would have negative consequences for them. But there is a group of enemies that cannot be controlled by deterrence due to their religious fanaticism: essentially, Iran and the terrorist entities it directs (Hezbollah, Anṣār Allāh, Hamas). If these entities acquire nuclear weapons, even just a “dirty bomb,” their use could bring the entire West to its knees. (A “dirty bomb” is a type of “radiological dispersal device” (RDD) that combines a conventional explosive, such as dynamite, with radioactive material.)
In this context, today’s war against Iran is essential and can be interpreted as a contribution to world peace, especially in light of the futility of international diplomacy and the United Nations, which always speak of peace but then prove powerless and inconclusive in the face of reality.
President Trump is currently at the center of all these events. He has tackled the problem of illegal drugs, which kill 80,000 Americans every year from overdoses (more than U.S. casualties in the entire Vietnam War). He has closed the borders to illegal immigration, which took advantage of porous borders that allowed parallel drug trafficking. He has bombed traffickers’ boats. He has increased the defense budget. He has intervened decisively to curb conflicts, for example between Armenia and Azerbaijan and between India and Pakistan. Now, allied with Israel, he has launched a military offensive that—without ground invasions and without repeating, hopefully, the mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan—aims for a better world and a safer Middle East.
Trump’s greatest success has been his rapprochement with the Sunni Arab world, first through the Abraham Accords, and now with a significant portion of the Arab world that has finally realized that the West is not the true enemy, that reasonable compromises can be found with Israel, and that today’s Shiite Iran is the real danger to be wary of.
The future is full of unknowns, dangers, and unexpected consequences. Anything can happen in the coming weeks, but at least for those who know history and who do not hate the West, there are reasons to be optimistic. Trump and Netanyahu do not want oil, military bases, or power in Iran. Beyond Trump’s bombastic statements (“unconditional surrender”), they are seeking a “Venezuelan” solution in which enemies are not humiliated by attempting to impose new leaders (such as the son of the old Shah Reza Pahlavi), but rather, behind the scenes, the emergence of more reasonable leaders, such as the shrewd Delcy Rodríguez, who has replaced Maduro in Venezuela and is capable of pleasing both Trump and the country’s socialist base.
Perhaps Trump’s methods will work in Cuba as well. The optimists hope so.
