Iran: when history is written backwards

Former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said, "History happens forward but is written backwards." The US-Israel decision to go to war with Iran is primarily a foreign policy decision, and history is filled with many such instances where policy decisions were made for waging a war for the achievement of some intended political and military goals, but in the end, those goals were never achieved.

History tells us that the unintended consequences of going to a war are the real consequences that shape history, and when the history of this war, in the words of Madeleine Albright, is written backwards, we may find that the US-Israel joint project of attacking Iran was a big disaster not only for both these countries but for the entire world. But first, a few examples from history about how the unintended consequences of the policy decision of waging war not only prevent the attainment of intended strategic objectives but also create other, much deeper-rooted crises.

History provides several powerful examples where foreign policy decisions designed to weaken a rival or achieve short-term strategic advantage produced long-term unintended consequences. The examples I quote from history relate to France, Germany, the former Soviet Union and the US.

France says that Iran is primarily responsible for the catastrophic regional situation. In the context, it cites Iran's destabilising role, nuclear activities and attack on regional partners. However, France considers the US-Israel strikes as taking place outside international law. Insisting that Iranian threats cannot be resolved through external military action, France pushes instead for diplomatic solutions.

Louis XVI was the last king of France, and one of his foreign policy decisions was a classic example of how the unintended consequences of a policy decision can prove to be fatal. He made a decision to assist the US in its civil war against Britain with a view to defeating a rival, but the unintended consequence of this was that the American Revolution became a dress rehearsal for the eventual French Revolution. Louis XVI funded a military show in the US that ended in the formation of a French Republic. France's strategic objective was to humiliate Britain, restore French prestige and reduce British global dominance.

In narrow geopolitical terms, France succeeded. Britain lost the American colonies, but the policy produced two unintended consequences that contributed to the crisis of the French monarchy. A financial consequence of the war was that it massively increased French debt, and in an ideological consequence, the French officers who served in America were exposed to ideas of republicanism and constitutional government as well as popular sovereignty figures such as Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. The French officers returned to France with revolutionary ideas learnt from the American Civil War, and these ideas contributed to the ideological climate that produced the French Revolution. Ultimately, Louis XVI himself was executed during the Revolution. As history was written backwards, it can be clearly witnessed that France's policy outcome diverged from its policymakers' intentions.

Germany's official position is that it has no intention of participating in military strikes against Iran. Chancellor Friedrich Merz has said Germany has no interest in a prolonged, endless war and seeks a diplomatic solution to the problem. The example from history that can be cited here is about the German decision during WWI to allow Vladimir Lenin to travel from exile to Russia. The intended goal of this German policy decision was to encourage revolutionary instability in Russia and force Russia to withdraw from the war. The immediate result was encouraging as the Bolshevik Revolution led to Russia's exit from the war through the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. However, the short-term wartime advantage that Germany achieved was nothing compared to what it ended up creating.

The birth of a powerful ideological adversary as the revolution created the Soviet state, which later became Germany's greatest geopolitical rival during the twentieth century. As Germany's WWI history was written backwards, one could easily determine that foreign policy decisions often produce second-order effects that policymakers fail to anticipate.

Russia condemns the US-Israeli strikes against Iran and considers them a violation of international law. Moscow calls for de-escalation and diplomatic resolution of the problem. The historical example that can be quoted here is about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The intended Soviet objectives were to preserve a pro-Soviet government in Kabul, prevent Western regional influence and maintain strategic control in Central Asia. However, the unintended consequences of this Soviet policy decision created a strategic nightmare for the Soviet Union. A decade-long war drained Soviet economic and military resources, strengthened the Islamist and militant networks and subjected the Soviet Union to international isolation. Ultimately, the Soviet system was weakened, which resulted in the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

During the same war, the US made a policy decision to support Mujahedeen, the Afghan resistance fighters, against Soviet forces. The US intended objectives were to weaken the Soviet Union, raise the cost of Soviet intervention, contribute to Cold War strategic competition and make the war extremely costly for Moscow. However, the unintended consequences of this decision included instability in Afghanistan post-Soviet withdrawal, emergence of a transnational terrorist threat and long-term security challenges that still affect global peace and security. When the history of the US involvement in this war was written backwards, it clearly illustrated how proxy warfare can produce actors that later operate beyond the control of their original sponsors.

Today, resentment is mounting in the Gulf Arab capitals. There is a growing feeling in the Gulf nations that they didn't want or endorse the war they have been dragged into, and that they are being made to bear staggering military and economic costs. Can the unintended consequence of the American-Israeli policy decision lead to the Gulf countries reconsidering their policy options, and diversifying their security and foreign partnerships? Maybe, they consider a new security arrangement with Iran under the patronage of China and Russia? Interesting times ahead. When the history of this war is written backwards, maybe the punch line would be: US and Israel lost the Middle East forever.