There is something almost poetic about the phrase “once and for all.” It rolls off the tongue with the confidence of history—clean, decisive, final. It promises closure. It sells victory. It reassures voters. It fits neatly into speeches.
And it has never once worked.
If there were a museum of failed geopolitical slogans, “once and for all” would sit proudly beside “mission accomplished,” quietly whispering: we’ll be back.
is right to be ambivalent. But ambivalence may actually be too generous. What we are witnessing is not strategy. It is ritual—repeated, predictable, and curiously immune to evidence.
Kill the leaders. Destroy the infrastructure. Declare momentum. Repeat.
Three generations of Hamas leadership eliminated—and yet Hamas governs Gaza still. Not metaphorically. Not ideologically. Literally. A fourth generation, rising like a political law of nature: power abhors a vacuum, especially when bombs create it.
But this time, we’re told, it’s different. Because this time the distance is greater, the explosions louder, the rhetoric sharper. This time it’s Iran—larger, prouder, older, and infinitely more complex.
Surely, from a thousand miles away, the same logic will finally produce a different result.
History, inconvenient as ever, disagrees.
The Cult of Decapitation
Modern warfare has developed an almost superstitious faith in decapitation—the idea that if you remove enough heads, the body will collapse.
Except the “body” here is not a snake. It’s a society.
And societies don’t die from airstrikes. They reorganize.
They absorb trauma, reinterpret it, mythologize it. Leaders are not just replaced; they are reborn—often younger, more radical, and less constrained by memory or compromise.
This is not a bug in the system. It is the system.
Yet policymakers continue to act as if eliminating individuals will erase the conditions that produced them. As if ideology evaporates under pressure. As if humiliation breeds compliance instead of defiance.
“I Drink Your Milkshake” — And Your Future
Then comes Rule No. 2: don’t drink the other guy’s milkshake.
Except, of course, that’s exactly what’s happening.
has spent years ensuring that no viable Palestinian alternative emerges—because a viable alternative would require political compromise. Far easier to argue there is “no partner” than to risk creating one.
It’s a brilliant strategy—if your goal is permanence of conflict.
Because when you eliminate both your enemies and their potential replacements, you don’t achieve peace. You achieve dependency on perpetual war.
The same logic now extends to Iran. Destroy enough. Humiliate enough. Isolate enough. And somehow, magically, a stable, pro-Western, democratic alternative will rise from the rubble.
Because nothing inspires democratic reform quite like being bombed into submission.
Strength, Weakness, and the Myth of Control
The most revealing illusion, though, is Rule No. 3: the power of the strong is not as dominant as it imagines.
The United States and Israel can strike with precision across continents. They can eliminate targets, disrupt networks, and dominate skies.
And yet, a drone launched from the back of a truck can rattle النفط markets. A missile in the Persian Gulf can spike global inflation. A disruption in the Strait of Hormuz can ripple into الغذاء shortages thousands of miles away.
That is the paradox of modern war: overwhelming military superiority paired with profound strategic vulnerability.
Strength wins battles. Weakness shapes outcomes.
The Real Endgame Nobody Wants to Admit
If there is an ending to this story, it will not come from the sky.
It will come—slowly, painfully, imperfectly—from politics. From negotiations with actors we dislike. From compromises that feel like losses. From acknowledging that legitimacy cannot be bombed into existence.
But that path is long. It is uncertain. It requires patience.
And patience does not poll well.
So instead, we get urgency. Escalation. The seductive promise of “once and for all.”
Which, translated into plain English, means:
again and again.
Because if you are in a hurry for a clean ending, you didn’t just choose the wrong strategy.
You chose the wrong war.
Comments