My Weekly Reader 21 March 2026.

            Zionism is nationalism for Jews in places where Jews aren’t allowed to assimilate.  It began in the late Nineteenth Century and drew most of its followers from the anti-Semitic states of Eastern Europe.[1]  For the most part, Eastern European Jews preferred to emigrate to Western Europe or—best of all—the United States.  After the First World War, American immigration restrictions choked down on Eastern European immigrants of all varieties.  The Depression had much the same effect on Western Europe.  Then Hitler came to power in Germany.  Suddenly, British-ruled Palestine began to look attractive.  The British government “recognized” a Jewish Agency as the spokesman for the “Yishuv,” the Jews in Palestine. 

            Then came the Second World War.  Jewish emigration from Nazi-ruled Europe slowed to the occasional droplet.  Early German victories forced Britain to play offense from its back foot.  To this end, Britain had two “intelligence” organizations with a special interest in Nazi Europe.  The Special Operations Executive (S.O.E.) fomented and supported resistance in occupied countries.  MI-9 tried to rescue the crews of downed British planes.  At first, they concentrated their work in Western Europe.  By 1944, they both had an interest in Eastern Europe. 

            While there were lots of agent candidates who knew Western Europe and its languages, equivalent people who were familiar with eastern Europe were thin on the ground.  Where to find people who could pass anonymously in Hungary, Rumania, Czechoslovakia, or Yugoslavia?   After a while, it occurred to someone that British Palestine had a bunch.  Here, the Jewish Agency had begun to learn of the Holocaust and wanted to know what might be done to help the besieged Jews.[2]  S.O.E., MI-9, and the Jewish Agency collaborated in recruiting 250 male and female volunteers; approving 150 of them for training; and sending 37 behind German lines.  They would be parachuted into Eastern Europe, where they would work with resistance movements, set up evasion lines for downed aircrew, and investigate the situation of the Jews. 

            By Spring 1944, the situation in the region had become highly unstable.  A revolt against the puppet-government of Slovakia was about to begin.  Traditional conservative nationalists struggled with fascists for control of Hungary.  The Red Army had made a dramatic advance westward in Spring and early Summer 1944.  If the Germans were pinned down by the Red Army, their allies in Hungary and Slovakia might be toppled.  Or not. 

            Most of the 37 parachuted in between March and September 1944.  Some fought with the Slovaks and some with the Yugoslav partisans, while some went to Budapest at the moment of the German coup to put the fascist Arrow Cross in power.  Twelve were captured and seven of these were executed.[3]  None of them accomplished their original missions.  Nevertheless, the effort has inspired interest.[4]  Why? 

            Perhaps because how we live our lives is more important than what we accomplish in them?  Courage and self-sacrifice are recurring themes in the world’s art, literature, and myth. 


[1] The Russian Empire, which then included most of Poland; Rumania; and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Subsequently, Poland and Hungary became independent states. 

[2] See: Walter Laqueur, The Terrible Secret (1980) on the Yishuv’s incomprehension of the Holocaust. 

[3] Of the seven who were executed, the most famous is Hanna Szenes, a sort of Jewish Noor Inayat Khan. 

[4] Amos Ettinger, Blind Jump (1992); Judith Baumel-Schwartz, Perfect Heroes (2010); Taviva Ofer, Haviva Reick (2014); Matti Friedman, Out of the Sky (2026).   

The Argument Against War with Iran.

            Let’s leave aside the reflexive “If Donald Trump does it, then it must be the wrong thing,” response of many people.[1]  What are real arguments against attacking Iran?   

            War with Iran might be smacking a hornet’s nest with a stick.  Iran isn’t much of a threat to the United States at the moment.  Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons; Iran’s vast stock of ballistic missiles only have the range to hit our regional allies or the US Navy in the northern Indian Ocean, not the heartland.  Iran made no significant response to the Israeli and American killing of its head terrorist, General Qassim Suleimani (2020), or to their attacks on nuclear sites in Summer 2026.  Nor did they do anything to support the Hamas fight inside Gaza or Hezbollah after the Israeli “pager” attack. 

These were limited attacks.  Iran’s rulers could see a huge attack, when combined with the mass protest demonstrations of recent months, and calls for regime change, as a mortal threat to the Islamic revolution.  This combination of threats could tip the regime over the edge into a wide ranging counter-attack.  This might combine attacks on American bases in the Middle East (and on the friendly governments that host those bases), a new “tanker war” to close the Straits of Hormuz oil-shipping lanes, and terrorism abroad.[2]  In short, we should be afraid, very afraid. 

            “Regime change” is going to be hard to do and the effort would have an uncertain  outcome.  On the one hand, airpower has been oversold from when it was just a twinkle in the eyes of Billy Mitchell and Arthur “Bomber” Harris.  The Second World War offers abundant proof that strategic bombing alone, whether of the “carpet” or “precision” variant, isn’t enough to win a war against a determined opponent.  Successfully attacking key Iranian nuclear sites in Summer 2025 didn’t budge the regime.  Do we want to commit ground forces to finish the job? 

On the other hand, Iraq (2003), Egypt (2011-2012), Libya (2011).  The United States intervened in all these places to change the regime.  Each adventure ended badly.  Foreign countries are just as complex societies as our own.  They are just as full of factions, conflicts, ambitions, and hatreds.  Dictatorships tend to repress these forces, while—alas—democracy allows them full play.  What if we pitch Iran from tyranny into civil war? 

            The Iranians have said that they will agree to never pursue nuclear weapons.  Why not take the win?  Declare victory and negotiate a mutually satisfactory form of words.  That form of words would include an Iranian commitment to never pursue nuclear weapons; to close its nuclear weapons sites (Fordo, Isfahan, Natanz); and to commit to not enrich uranium beyond a low level; all of it under close international supervision.[3]   

We should not run grave risks for very uncertain outcomes. 

This isn’t to say that we should do nothing.  The regime is unpopular with many Iranians.  The US can covertly support selected dissidents in hopes that Iran will have a better revolution. 


[1] It’s an understandable response, but not entirely correct. 

[2] The threat is not to be sneezed at.  It has been credibly alleged that Iran inspired the bombing of the US Marine and French Foreign Legion barracks in Beirut, the US Air Force residence in Saudi Arabia, and Jewish sites in Argentina.  See: Anthony H. Cordesman, The Iran-Iraq war and Western Security, 1984–1987: Strategic Implications and Policy Options (1987); James Risen and Jane Perlez, “Terrorism and Iran: Washington’s Policy Performs a Delicate Balancing Act,” The New York Times, 23 June 2001; and Daniel Politi, “Argentine Court Says Iran Was Behind Israeli Embassy and Jewish Center Attacks,” The New York Times, 12 April 2024. 

[3] See: Nicholas Kristof, “The Folly of Attacking Iran,” NYT, 1 March 2026. 

The Argument for War with Iran.

            Currently, 89 percent of world energy use comes from high-carbon sources like oil.[1]  Whenever the “green transition” comes to energy, it won’t be for a long time yet. 

            Until then, the world economy runs on oil.  World prosperity runs on oil.  The economic, social, and political effects of supply disruptions and/or price spikes can be very great.[2]  Stepping back a bit, the economic crisis of the 1930s wrecked political democracy in Germany, nearly wrecked it in France and the United States, and subjected it to great stress in Great Britain.  What did we get from that? 

            The Middle East is one of the several great centers of oil and natural gas production in the world.  Whatever one thinks of the people running the carbon-producing countries of that region, peace and political stability in that region are much to be desired.  There is no hiving it off from the rest of the world economy.  The world has a single global oil market.  What happens in one oil producing region affects the price everywhere. 

            Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, Iran has been a Shi’ite theocratic dictatorship.  It has been anti-Western, anti-Sunni Muslim, anti-Israel.  For historical reasons, it has been especially anti-American.[3]  It has long pursued nuclear weapons, built a huge arsenal of missiles, and created proxy military groups in the Middle East.[4]  Taken all together, for many years Iran has been the creator and sustainer of many aspects of a multi-layered regional crisis.  A nuclear-armed Iran could destroy Israel, hold all the oil states hostage, and deter the US from putting its forces at risk in the region.  It posed a mortal threat to regional stability and the world economy. 

            But what to do about it?  President Obama did a deal with Iran.  The agreement offered Iran relief from international economic sanctions in exchange for a time-limited reduction in its nuclear effort.  It did not permanently end Iran’s nuclear program, nor limit its ballistic missiles, nor restrain Iranian proxies.  President Trump withdrew from the executive agreement, and re-imposed economic sanctions.  He also ordered the killing of Iran’s head terrorist as a warning shot.  President Biden tried to revive the Obama agreement, but the Iranians refused to play ball.  They drove ahead with their nuclear program, while winding-up and arming up Hamas in Gaza.  The latter effort spilled over in October 2023. 

            In Summer 2025, with Trump president once again, the United States and Israel launched a joint attack that badly damaged Iran’s nuclear program.  Trump offered to negotiate.  He wanted Iran’s nuclear effort permanently stopped, but he scaled back the demands on the missiles and the proxies.  Those negotiations dragged on.  The Iranians wanted the nukes and—apparently—believed that they could get the Americans bogged down in talks. 

            The Islamic Revolution has mismanaged the economy for decades.  Many younger people reject the state’s strict social rules.  Demonstrations have broken out again and again. 

            Trump made them an offer they shouldn’t have refused.  Maybe the regime will fall. 


[1] See: Global Energy Tracker | Council on Foreign Relations 

[2] See: 1970s energy crisis – Wikipedia  This is a useful introduction to some events and their effects, but barely scratches the surface. 

[3] In 1953, an Anglo-American engineered coup put the Shah back in power.  The Shah pursued a socially-disruptive modernization of the country while also stomping all over any sign of dissent.  Throughout this process, the Americans turned a blind eye to the abuses and rising discontent. 

[4] In Syria, in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Gaza, and in Yemen.