Mother B

The Iran war is endless because the fighting stopped short, and the people who wanted it stopped are citing its length as proof it never should have started. We're using force to advance diplomacy, then mistake another round of negotiations for a result. War is supposed to strip an enemy of his leverage and impose costs until accepting enforceable terms becomes cheaper than resisting. Negotiations can record that result, but they cannot replace it. The decision to fight gets priced at the cost of a short campaign. But the real price is what it takes to secure the political objective. If that price isn’t worth paying, then don’t go to war. In Iran, we used force to buy a diplomatic process while leaving Tehran holding Hormuz and its uranium. The costs of forcing a result are immediate, and the politician who orders it owns them. The costs of stopping short arrive a little at a time and get charged to the war instead of the decision. So politicians stop short, and pay anyway. When Tehran concludes American politicians won’t bear the costs of finishing the job, every pause becomes time to rearm, and every round of talks is another chance to extract concessions. That makes forcing terms even more costly, and another pause more tempting. We manufacture wars without resolution, then blame war itself for the bill politicians wouldn’t pay.