In the Hope That the US–Israel–Iran War Won’t Become Endless: Lessons from Wars That Finally Found Resolution
By Karl Garcia
As the conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran escalates in early 2026, fears of a protracted, open-ended war are spreading far beyond the Middle East. Following coordinated U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran, including attacks on nuclear and military infrastructure, and the reported death of Iran’s Supreme Leader, retaliatory missile and drone attacks have extended beyond Iran’s borders into Lebanon and Gulf states, involving Hezbollah in Lebanon, Yemeni Houthi forces, and threatening major trade routes in the Strait of Hormuz. These developments have regionalized the conflict, increasing its complexity and the potential for a long-term, multi-front war. (Global Conflict Tracker)
This moment — fraught, volatile, and reminiscent of past large-scale wars — raises a pressing question: Can such a war ever end, or are we witnessing the birth of an “endless war?” History shows that wars between powerful states and long-standing adversaries can be resolved, but only with sustained diplomacy, structural reform, and decades of societal transformation. Examining past conflicts that finally concluded offers both caution and guidance.
Lessons from Historical “Endless Wars”
Endless wars are not only defined by duration, but by cyclical violence, failed military solutions, and profound societal costs. Across the globe, some of the most protracted conflicts have eventually reached closure, often through negotiation and reform rather than military victory alone.
Colombia’s FARC Insurgency (1964–2016)
Colombia’s conflict with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) lasted more than five decades, fueled by rural inequality, ideological insurgency, and narcotics trafficking. Only in 2016 did the Colombian government and FARC sign a comprehensive peace agreement, disarming combatants and integrating former rebels into political life, while addressing rural reforms.
Lesson: Transforming an insurgency into political discourse and structural reforms can end violence that military force alone could not.
Philippine–Moro Conflict (1970s–2019)
The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) fought for autonomy in Mindanao for decades. Through prolonged negotiation, the Bangsamoro Organic Law and the creation of the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) in 2019 addressed core grievances over governance and identity.
Lesson: Autonomy and political recognition can convert prolonged conflicts into peaceful administrative frameworks.
Nepalese Civil War (1996–2015)
Nepal’s Maoist insurgency fought the government for a decade. While combat ended with the 2006 peace agreement, full political integration and constitutional reform took until 2015, transitioning Nepal from monarchy to a federal democratic republic.
Lesson: Ending combat requires structural political reform; post-war reconciliation is often a lengthy process.
Sudan – Darfur & Eastern Conflicts (2003–2020)
Cycles of violence in Sudan persisted for nearly two decades. The 2020 peace agreements between the transitional government and multiple rebel groups formalized recognition, civilian inclusion, and reconstruction.
Lesson: Inclusive political settlements for multi-faction conflicts can formalize peace, though implementation remains challenging.
Sri Lankan Civil War (1983–2009)
The LTTE insurgency was decisively defeated militarily in 2009. However, decades-long reconciliation and reintegration were essential to stabilize affected regions.
Lesson: Even military victory must be paired with social reconciliation to prevent recurrence.
Comparative Timeline of Wars That Found Resolution
| Conflict | Duration | Turning Point / Resolution | Key Lessons |
|---|---|---|---|
| Colombian FARC Insurgency | 1964–2016 (~52 yrs) | 2016 peace agreement: disarmament, political integration, rural reforms | Negotiation over military victory; structural reforms; long-term commitment |
| Philippine–Moro Conflict (MILF) | 1970s–2019 (~40+ yrs) | 2014 Comprehensive Agreement → BARMM 2019 | Autonomy and recognition; sustained negotiation |
| Nepalese Civil War | 1996–2015 (~19 yrs, 10 yrs active combat + integration) | 2006 peace agreement + 2015 constitution | Structural political reform; lengthy post-war reconciliation |
| Sudan – Darfur & Eastern Conflicts | 2003–2020+ (~17 yrs) | 2020 peace agreements | Inclusive multi-faction settlements; careful implementation required |
| Sri Lankan Civil War (LTTE) | 1983–2009 (~26 yrs) | 2009 military defeat + reconciliation | Military victory alone is insufficient; social reconciliation crucial |
| Mali – Tuareg & Islamist Conflicts | 2012–2015+ (~ongoing cycles) | 2015 Algiers Peace Accord | Peace agreements can reduce conflict but require ongoing governance support |
Key Patterns in Ending “Endless” Wars
Across these cases, several patterns emerge:
- Negotiation Over Total Victory: Military force rarely delivers lasting peace; settlements with political or structural concessions do.
- Addressing Root Causes: Conflicts rooted in identity, governance, or inequality require systemic solutions.
- Time and Commitment: Ceasefires and treaties are milestones, not endpoints; implementation takes years or decades.
- Multi-Faction Coordination: Inclusive agreements across all parties are necessary to prevent relapse into conflict.
Applying Lessons to the US–Israel–Iran Conflict
The current US–Israel–Iran war differs from these historical cases, but the risk of becoming an endless conflict is pronounced. Decades of hostility, proxy wars, nuclear standoffs, and ideological opposition have already produced regional instability. Importantly, the conflict has spread to Lebanon, Yemen, and Gulf neighbors, involving Hezbollah, Houthi forces, and threatening shipping lanes, signaling a multi-front escalation reminiscent of past long wars. The geographic and political spread increases the stakes and the complexity of any potential resolution.
History teaches that military escalation alone cannot end protracted conflict. Lasting resolution would require:
- Renewed diplomacy: with clear, enforceable conditions acceptable to all parties.
- Incentives for de-escalation: economic, political, or security guarantees.
- Regional and international coordination: ensuring agreements are monitored and upheld.
- Addressing core grievances: balancing Israel’s security concerns, Iran’s regional influence, and the stakes of proxy actors.
Conclusion: Hope Amid Risk
The historical record offers both warning and hope. Endless wars can end, but only when leaders confront the limits of violence and commit to structural, political, and social solutions. The cases of Colombia, Nepal, the Philippines, Sudan, Sri Lanka, and Mali demonstrate that even the most intractable conflicts may yield to negotiation, compromise, and long-term engagement.
For the US–Israel–Iran conflict — now regionalized across Lebanon, Yemen, and the Gulf — the lessons are clear: avoiding decades of violence will require sustained diplomacy, inclusive solutions, and strategic patience. Without such steps, the world risks watching a conflict escalate into the next “endless war.”
The Society of Honor by Joe America 
Disagree totally.
Those conflicts resolved by negotiations were those with internal disagreements, often tribal/religious.
This Iran conflict is like Afghanistan, Iraq, Cambodia, Indonesia, Mozambique, Angola, Algeria, (North)Korea & Vietnam. Conflicts where an external power (¨bully¨) intendeds to keep/get the power over the locals. And those invariably were lost by the bullies. Never mind that the USA/Russia/SouthAfrica/France/Portugal has (had) superior power, they lost. As in: lots of casualties but nothing to show for. And the civilians paid the ultimate price. The learning should be that the people who “won” ended up with governments who were now used to violence and it takes many decades before it somehow comes to (internal) peace. Not before the governments have taken revenge on the people who supported the external powers who lost. That revenge took decades, generations, to calm down. Iran was still in the revenge period when the Ayatollahs took over from the Shah (who was put in place by the Western powers). So, it’s like the pot calling the kettle black. Finally, Iran was on the way out of the Ayatollah dictatorship (as seen by the increasing amount of protests) when the bullies intervened. It would have taken time before the people of Iran would have gained a stable, fair, government, but it was the only way to let the situation resolve itself. Now, Pandora’s box is open and lots of coffins will have to be produced or mass graves if the idiots in power release their biggies….
Anyway, we are in a powerless country and have to adopt the “Que Sera, Sera” approach. That does not mean that we have to sit with the hands behind our backs. We need to anticipate the consequences and react proactively.
Remember the “Peak Oil” discussion when I said that the fuel price should be doubled and the proceeds used to go away from hydrocarbon fuels to solar/wind? There was no follow up by anyone. But I have promoted that for 30 years and IF we would have followed this approach, we now could have raised the middle finger. Instead, we now are victims of high fuel prices, being addicted to jeepneys and fertilizer and OFW remittances. I like to use the example of one of my daughters, they drive an electrical car, have 12 solar panels on the roof and on heat the house with gas, electricity or wood. Pity they live in town and cannot grow their own food.
Philippines now is dependent on external parties for everything. EVERYTHING. Food, power, transport, intelligence, data…….. A very dangerous position to be in.
Just last week, I had an interesting discussion with our mayor. The municipality has given permission to build a solar plant. Chinese money, Chinese contractor. Why are even the drivers/mechanics/cooks Chinese??? Why did they get work permits? Are there no Filipino drivers/cooks/mechanics?
They mayor stated that it is economics, it is the cheapest contractor, so it is OK. CRAZY, instead of building local capabilities we now are partying with foreigners.
I do not think that there is anybody in power (or aiming to become in power) has a survival strategy. Because before we start talking about achieving greatness, we first need to survive.
I just saw pictures from the 80-ies when the sugarcane production collapsed and there was a famine. I just came 10 years later to The Philippines and never ever realized how close that disaster had been. I came to The Philippines to dive in many places and it seemed like a country of milk and honey. Everything grows and even after a typhoon food grows within weeks, schools were functioning, transport was a pain but functioning and the food delicious.
And still, disaster struck.
Has it all been forgotten?
Being independent and self-sufficient is crucial to survival when the world goes crazy and you are in a small, insignificant country..
Anybody thinking that callcentres and OFW’s will pull Philippines out of the danger zone needs a brain transplant. Survival starts HERE and NOW. And Philippines is in a rather unique position to make it happen.
However, there are no attempts to make it happen.
Am I a panic monger with this approach?
Maybe.
But until now I was proven right.
And being independent is a small price to pay for the privilege to stick up the middle finger when discussions start on the price of fuel and food.
….. but it becomes a pain when it would not be possible anymore to regularly visit the kids in Europe…. Thanks Donald and Benjamin (and all their supporters).
I grew up in a family where “The War” was never far away. It was clear what a devastation war means. And here we are again. Like usual, war mongers getting away with everything and a world in turmoil. And nothing we can do about it.
Let’s take care of ourselves and our family/neighbours/friends and realize that people actually want simple things: food, shelter, health. Only a few seem to need billions and control over the 99%, that we cannot change, so let’s change the things we can.
And at then end, when (if) we are still alive, not forget who caused this mayhem and call them to justice. Or initiate something like the South African reconciliation project.
Thanks again Paul for your valuable insights.
Survival has been discussed here in more ways than one.
No one is panicking that we are an import reliant country, we are in a just in time logistics.
Pandemic crisis will happen anytime soon and all assurance we got is we have emergemch supplies of oil and I think that is untrue.
What about food, with poor domestic supply chain logistics which are more experts in parcels, I am afraid we will have more food wastes that could have gone into our mouths.
Thanks again.
On domestic food security, a serious look needs to be taken into logistics chains. Fresh seafood, meat and produce do not do well in a country where a lackadaisical approach of “it gets there when it gets there” is taken. Even parcel delivery timeliness isn’t that great if we’re frank.
In North America (including Canada and Mexico) we take the bulk approach of shipping massive refrigerated container trucks full of foodstuffs from as far away as the southernmost part of South America. In Japan the Japanese highly value fresh food and thus take care to pack produce well where each bunch of veggies have nary a bruise when it arrives at the grocery store, customers gingerly putting back what they choose not to buy. In the Philippines I’ve often seen stuff just thrown into the back or whatever vehicle is carrying it, or customers tossing unwanted product back into the grocery stand because damaged products are another person’s problem.
Certainly new multiuse ferries can be designed with refrigerated cargo compartments, like is commonly used in Europe. Overland transport can have refrigerated containers and more care can be taken to conserve valuable resources of food.
Exactly.
Two examples of how food logistics works in Germany:
1) cows are slaughtered at some of the major companies at the Munich Schlachthofviertel (slaughterhouse district) in the early hours of the morning. They are processed on the spot into “Rinderhälften” (halves of cows) and moved from the slaughterhouse straight into the refrigerated container of the truck, hanging upright. The truck(s) leave before the dawn and take the halves to cooling storages of major stores where they are processed again into saleable parts. As meat spoils extremely quickly every step is mission critical and the law mandates that the Kühlkette (cooling chain) is never broken all the way to the store.
2) vegetables come via truck to the Munich Wholesale Market, where the wholesalers unload the palettes using forklifts and sell them to restaurants and retailers. Major local distributors like the Turkish-German enterpreneur Cavosoglu have their own storage facilities directly adjacent to the market. The retailers, restaurant owners etc. come in with small pickups or cargo vans and buy all they need at the wholesale market, which is pretty close to town. Actually they can also get meat at the slaughterhouse district which is on the other side of the railway tracks. Or wine from some Italian wholesalers.
The US invented modern food distribution in the early 1900s along with modern logistics so how that works in Germany is almost exactly how things work in the US. Not so much in the Philippines though outside of the mall-affiliated supermarket chains.
Come to think about it food security is the most basic concern of humans, overriding even safety concerns if one were forced to choose between the two. Increasing food security is done not mainly by producing larger quantities of food, though production is important, but by increasing efficiencies in production and distribution. In order to increase production efficiencies there is a need to mechanize and utilize new techniques. In order to increase distribution there is a need for better transport infrastructure. When increased efficiencies create surplus there is a need for storage infrastructure. Every system is a system within a larger system and a planner needs to take a holistic approach in order to understand how different pieces interact with the other parts.
The revolution of modern food distribution as started in the US was enabled principally by building transport infrastructure *first.* Dirt and gravel roads replaced by tarmac. Railroads spanning contiguous territory. Bridges engineered across wide bodies of water when previously bridges only crossed small streams and brooks.
In the Philippines how things are done often is a case of “putting the cart before the horse.” Philippine leaders want to copy the results of other modern nations without laying the groundwork. That results in creating small islands of modernity, the grandest example of which is BGC, leaving the rest of the Philippines underdeveloped. Same for electrification, building factories, and so on, supporting infrastructure is needed first. Sometimes I just want to smack my head because Philippine policy papers *do point these facts out.* The policy papers are just ignored, and the elites in leadership just want to start at the conclusion, working backwards from there like a student who copies his seatmate’s answer yet knows not how to solve the problem on his own. No wonder things seem to be done completely backwards there.
You are right, about the politics of it. But the oligarchs have skills built, as they should be, on profits in a competitive arena. The area covered by modern, intricate supply chains is quite extensive. The part using local supply chains is shrinking.
I would append a caveat “the merchant oligarchs” who sell mostly imported soft and hard goods, as the real-estate based oligarchs mostly deal in land speculation. The merchant oligarchs need to develop their own supply chains out of necessity due to what they sell, and increasingly they are getting into infrastructure building as the government is mostly ineffective in that area. Good examples here is Ramon Ang’s New NAIA Infrastructure Corporation and Manila Skyways 3 & 4 or Manila Water which is run by the Ayalas.
Since most Philippine oligarchs seem outwardly benevolent so far, or at least, neutral, oligarchs helping out if the intentions align with the public interest is not bad. American oligarchs of the Gilded Age engaged heavily in the public sphere as well. But still, it seems to me that the public interest and the public good should be undertaken by the elected representatives of the people, i.e. the government, otherwise what is the point of having a government at all?
No argument from me. A beer giant is building an airport. I cheer.
I’m reminded that one part of resilience is resourcefulness and that “corruption” is basically a solution for certain imbalances. When Yolanda wiped out our region, and I mean wiped out, it took 1 day for smuggled gasoline to get in via Maripipi Island, allowing transportation to move and people to get out or get food. Petron got its first truck in in 7 days and charged the rate smugglers had set, about double normal as I recollect.
Malls and supermarkets are stocked with fresh goods, impressive because, as a former produce clerk at Safeway, I know the spoilage factor. So there are robust supply lines here, now even reaching remote provincial towns like Naval, Biliran which now has a McDonalds and is getting a Gaisano Mall. The fruit store my wife visits in Cebu takes back bad fruits. Very customer centric.
Before Cordova in Mactan was developed I used to spend mornings on the pristine beach watching smuggler’s boats come ashore. No one likes to pay taxes if they can avoid it, hah!
After Odette building supplies like wood and hollow blocks were sold at astronomical prices despite the order from Manila that there be no price gouging or profiteering. Yet there was no enforcement. I knew obliquely of some policemen who sold supplies on the side at inflated prices as well, and boasted loudly about their profits.
Certainly supermarkets and hypermarts which cater to the middle class are well-stocked, that’s for sure. The “taboan” (outdoor markets) and “tiyanggi” (temporary markets set up along the highway) that poor folks go to, quality is not as much. In any case not being able to minimize spoilage is not just a waste of food, but increases food prices overall as there is less to sell. Then there is the national preference towards “delata” (canned goods) and preserved foods due to widespread lack of refrigeration along the chain of transport and storage, which contribute to rising obesity, early onset Type 2 diabetes, clogged arteries and more.
Oh, no question, those flaws in process and thinking exist. My point is that the Philippines is not an incompetent backwater in food acquisition and distribution. The oligarchs compete and their networks are extensive and crowded.
Filipino merchant oligarchs, it seems to me, may be greedy but they are not yet downright evil like many American oligarchs are today. The Filipino ones remind me more of the Late Gilded Age “Captains of Industry” who figured that helping out with charities and building infrastructure would rehabilitate their public image from greedy men into civic heroes. Let’s hope Filipino oligarchs won’t go evil for a while yet. Before the modern US state came into being during the Progressive Era, a lot of state capacity was actually oligarchs-sponsored state capacity.
I’m in favor of greed as a facilitator of growth and sensible regulations to hold it in check. I think regulation is weak and the oligarchs get their way. Which magnifies your take that it’s important that they not go evil. As of today, at least to my thinking, they represent the “good Philippines”, and it is a significant part of the nation’s overall character.
Paul going back to you peak oil comment.
You are essentially describing a classic problem in economics: externalities. Oil, coal, land, water, and food are cheap not because they are abundant, but because the true cost is not included in the price. Pollution, health damage, climate risk, disaster recovery, and ecosystem loss are paid later by society, not at the pump or on the electricity bill. This is why European countries tend to have higher fuel prices: taxes are used partly to internalize those costs. The result is exactly what you described — smaller cars, more public transport, more renewables, and lower per-capita energy use — not because people became more virtuous, but because the price signals forced adaptation.
This is what I gathered from your comnent above
Your argument follows a historical pattern that political scientists, historians, and security analysts have pointed out for decades: external intervention wars tend to last longer, cost more, radicalize societies, and rarely produce stable outcomes, especially when the conflict is framed as domination vs. resistance rather than negotiation among internal factions. There is strong historical basis for what you are saying, even if the details differ from case to case.
Examples often cited in studies of insurgency and occupation include the
In many of these, the side with superior military power failed to achieve political legitimacy on the ground.
The usual pattern observed in conflict research is:
This is very close to the dynamic you describe. Iran and the long memory of intervention
Your reference to Iran’s “revenge period” also matches the historical timeline.
Key turning point:
Many analysts argue that the revolution cannot be understood without the 1953 coup, because it created the perception that foreign powers decide Iran’s fate.
When a society carries that memory, any new external pressure strengthens hard-liners instead of moderates. That pattern has appeared repeatedly in modern history. The “self-resolution vs intervention” debate
There are two competing schools in international relations: 1. Stability through intervention
Belief that strong powers must intervene to prevent chaos. 2. Stability through internal evolution
Belief that imposed solutions create long-term instability.
Your view is closer to the second, which is associated with ideas in
These fields often conclude that internal legitimacy matters more than external strength. The Philippines angle — vulnerability of dependent states
Your concern about the Philippines is not panic talk.
It fits the concept of strategic dependency, where a country relies on others for critical systems:
Economists call this exposure to external shocks.
The Philippines experienced this before during the
When sugar prices collapsed, whole provinces lost income, and food insecurity followed despite the country being agriculturally rich.
This is exactly the kind of fragility you are warning about. The local capability problem you mentioned (solar plant example)
What you described — foreign-funded project, foreign contractor, foreign workers — is a classic development dilemma:
Cheap project now
vs
Building domestic capability for the future
Development economists call this:
Countries that escaped dependency (Japan, Korea, Taiwan) forced local participation even when it was more expensive. Survival vs greatness
Your point that survival must come before ambition is actually very close to the logic of national security planning.
In strategy theory, priorities usually go:
Many countries try to jump to step 5 without securing steps 1–3. War memory and reconciliation
Your last point about reconciliation is important.
Some conflicts only stabilized after truth-and-reconciliation processes, like:
These processes work slowly, but they reduce revenge cycles.
Without that, violence tends to repeat across generations. Bottom line
Your position can be summarized as:
That is not panic thinking.
It is a risk-based view of history, and history unfortunately gives many examples that support it.
A good summary of my rant.
But, I would like to mention something crucial and specific to the Middle East. Having lived and worked there for many years amongst the local population (not as an isolated expat), I found that all Middle Eastern countries have their history in their DNA. Thousands of years. Not like Europe where we were still in the mud while astronomy was developed in the Middle East.
When you walk through Cairo, Damascus, Amman, Diyarbakir, Baghdad, (or even the very small towns of maybe a 1000 inhabitants), you FEEL the history. I spend an evening under the stars in the desert with a friend from Der Ezzor who tried to explain me the history of his family and when he reached about 1000 years ago, my head was spinning. Everything was explained using relations (weddings, deaths, births, families). It was remarkable that he stated that his family had strained relations with another family because of some land grabbing issue many hundreds of years ago. And some good relations with another family because they helped them during floods, also hundreds of years ago. Memories last a long time in the Middle East. A very, very long time.
That is why most people in the ME are polite, hospitable and generous. Because a good deed will not be forgotten and neither will be rudeness or stinginess.
This is completely different from trips through Vietnam where I found no hard feelings against the USA or France. Nor in Philippines where only Duterte mentioned (in a meeting with the American president) the atrocities by the Americans, but the majority adores everything in/from the USA or Spain.
Not so in the Middle East. Hence, the 1953 Iran events were not forgotten and every action by Brittan and the USA were seen in that light. And they were proven right, even when an agreement was finally reached, Trump tore it up. Iran won´t trust any outsider and will hide inside their religion. They are in it for the long haul. They have seen what happened to Iraq and all those other countries who got dumped when the “regime change” happened and the lesson is obvious: fight to the end and take no prisoners…..
For sure, there are many people in the Iran who do not agree, who fled to the West. Many people who are educated and wanted change. But that would be a slow process, a process which was actually taking place but now we have set the minds back to 1953. 70 years of adaption gone out of the window, nothing will change now for another 70++ years. The regime now has a much bigger ax to grind and (apart from maybe Spain), the majority of the countries are seen as condoning the aggression and will face the consequences during the coming century. How long can you bribe your way through that time period (by letting the leaders steal the oil revenues) will be an interesting case. Now, we have many Iranians living abroad. People who’s families in Iran are blown to pieces by a bunch of war criminals. Suddenly Evin prison has dropped in the list of bad things.. Talking about exporting a localized problem…
Thank you for lending your shoes for a moment. There is no exit strategy here even for the stranded ships. If they go to the ground it means it is “forever” not faster.
Well maybe Vinfast can help with getting the Philippines off of petroleum-based personal vehicles. AFAIK Vinfast has an aggressive plan to become the #1 BEV brand in the Philippines, which is currently held by China’s BYD. As most Filipinos cannot afford cars anyway, Vinfast also has a new line of e-scooters that is breaking into the Indian market.
Wouldn’t solve the problem of alternative energy generation and storage infrastructure though. Choices here are between Chinese (largest global share of cheap photovoltaics), Germany (best quality) and the US (original IP originator).
I’ve researched solar panels here, and China is dominant. Germany for quality, as you say. I’m not aware of US vendors.
The US has First Solar, Silfab and of course Tesla Energy. Then there are the majority-American owned joint ventures Qcells USA (South Korea’s Hanwha is minority owner) and Illuminate USA (China’s LONGi is minority owner).
Ah, thanks.
I have an interesting review where it stated that the best quality panels (for normal people like us) actually are made in China. The summary: China produces so many panels of good quality that they give the best overall quality when you buy a set of panels. Only if you test every panel individually, it is worth buying a top-of-the-line manufacturer, but that costs serious money.
Anyway, the costs are not in the panels anymore but in the cabling, electronics and installation. Getting an extra panel more than offsets the costs of premium panels.
Ah, thanks Paul. I appreciate the tips.
Another point I got from this. Law of supply and demand…what about it. In the middle PH retail will have rush until supply lasts inventory sail as if they know what to do if supply really does not last.
The lessons we are to extract from this seem impossible to me.
Ukraine seems a forever war. Korea is a forever war, now tepid. Iran has been at war with Israel for decades. Trump stupidly put the US into it for reasons as far- reaching and non-sensical as the Epstein files. Iranians are a sub-population in the US, having fled when the US puppet leadership ended. So on second thought, I guess it has been a forever involvement for the US for some time.
The best tack for the Philippines, as Paul says, get self sufficient. Also build alliances with nations that have sane leadership.
Hope those with sane leadershp remain to have sane leaders.
This is what I gathered from Joe’s comments.
Your conclusion reflects a realist reading of geopolitics—that some conflicts do not end through diplomacy because the actors involved do not actually want resolution, only advantage. History shows that both views exist: some wars end through negotiation, others become long-duration strategic rivalries that last generations. The situations you mention — Ukraine, Korea, Iran–Israel — fall closer to the second category.
Below is a structured look at the lessons that can still be extracted, even if they seem pessimistic. 1. Some conflicts are not meant to be solved — only managed
Examples:
In these cases:
This is likely the model for:
2. Diplomacy fails when the war is ideological or existential
Negotiations work when the dispute is about:
Negotiations fail when the dispute is about:
Iran vs Israel is existential:
This makes compromise politically toxic on all sides. 3. Forever wars happen when outside powers are involved
You correctly listed cases where external powers prolonged conflicts:
Pattern:
External powers rarely want quick resolution because:
4. Why self-sufficiency becomes attractive for middle powers
For countries like the Philippines, the lesson is not isolation — but strategic resilience.
This aligns with the thinking of leaders like
Their approach:
Self-sufficiency means:
Not autarky, but strategic independence. 5. The danger today: the world is returning to bloc politics
We are moving toward something like a new Cold War:
Similar to post-1945 alignment patterns after the
World War II
Small and medium states that survive best usually:
6. Why the Philippines must be careful now
The Philippines sits in a sensitive zone:
The risk:
The safer strategy historically has been:
This is closer to strategic balancing than full alignment. 7. Final observation
Your statement is harsh but historically grounded:
When that happens, the lesson for others is not to fix the conflict —
but to avoid being pulled into it.
And that is exactly why many countries today are quietly moving toward:
Not because diplomacy failed, but because the world has entered a period where diplomacy alone is not enough.
Very good extension of my core thinking. I particularly appreciate the delineation of the new cold war blocs, US centered, China centered, Russia centered, and Hedging States. Thanks.
My pleasure.
A retired general once wisely told a group I was with over dinner: “In war he who stops fighting first is the loser, regardless of declaratory statements otherwise.”
The Middle East conflicts can be seen through a short-view and a long-view. Short-view being the events since the Anglo-British Mandate System following the breakup of the Ottoman Empire after WWI. Long-view going all the way back to the Muslim conquest of the Near East during the First Islamic State of Muhammad and the subsequent Rashidun Caliphate of the early 600s. So in a sense, the Middle East has been in a forever war going back a millennia and a half, even longer before to that over 5,000 years to the dawn of the Bronze Age if the religious-ethnic wars in the Levant and Near East are considered.
I find it not at all useful to overlay modern, Enlightenment (“Western”) views on conflicts that existed well before the relatively recent advent of European Enlightenment. Sure, an argument can be made for Universal Truths like human rights, but how many problems get compounded when interpretations of such Truths get imposed upon others without any discourse? It didn’t make things much easier when the British and French greedily carved up the territories of the former Ottoman Empire with no regard for ethno-religious lines. Are we to believe that prior to the Mandate System the inhabitants of those lands drew straight lines on a map to demarcate their claimed territories? A few months ago when visiting my French relatives my cousins angrily disagreed that the current events largely originate from British and French greed and hubris when those countries took advantage of the Mandate System to create new colonies instead of respecting the mandate given by the League of Nations to be caretakers until the peoples were able to organize their own governments. Besides, history has shown again and again that the Near East only encounters peace when there is a hegemon over everyone else. In the ancient past it was the pharaohs of pharaonic Egypt. The Mittani, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, later the various Muslim Caliphates and much later the Turkish Ottomans. Central Asian Afghanistan, thus influenced by the Near East, had such a system under the former Barakzai kings who were accepted and respected by every major Afghan ethnic group who are now warring against each other again since the Soviet coup and invasion in 1978.
The current Middle East conflict may become a forever war, but it can also be seen as a “continuation war.” There are competing rationale for starting the conflict, from Trump attempting a display of power to distract from his implication in the Epstein Files and domestic backlash to MAGA’s sundering of the US economy, to superficial understandings of the politics of the Israelis, Arabs, and other ethnic groups like the Kurds. A major factor is there is an unspoken sectarian war between “Christian” apocalyptic millenarians, “Jewish” apocalyptic millenarians, and “Islamic” apocalyptic millenarians. A three-way war pushed by insane cults and sects who are all hoping to create the condition for the return of their own messiahs and madhis that have somehow captured national power in the US, Israel, the Arab states and Iran. And everyone else is dragged along for the ride…
The greater problem is how these insane people were able to capture the apparatus of government in their respective states. In democratic countries like the US and Israel, “normies” who may be moderates have over a number of years pulled back from civic participation due to various reasons (mostly concerning economic pressures). Current “progressives” and “leftists” don’t seem that progressive at all, preferring to be bomb throwers and yellers. Even though the sane outnumber the insane, there is not enough unifying effort done to push back against the insane. Sane people expect the system which they were born into and sold to follow rules and norms, so it is hard to know what to do when the insane constantly break laws, rules, and norms, and there is no accountability because the insane have also captured the apparatus of justice.
Speaking to Israeli friends, there is a sense of hopelessness, even though moderate Israelis are for Two State and are against Netanyahu and his far-right allies. Arab oil sheikhs for decades allied with religious fanatics like the Wahhabists and Salafists in the Sunni world, and the Jafari Twelvers in the Shia world in order to vault from being a tribe of camel herders in the desert to being trillionaire sheikhs, emirs, and kings. This Islamic extremism even spread to SEA, where Indonesians like a good friend of mine went from a jeans and t-shirt wearing secular girl to hijab, to full hijab, to whole-body burkha within the span of her university years in the late 2000s (she went to a Saudi-funded Wahhabi university). Well it is hard to moderate and modernize when any attempt to reform their welfare states receive immense pushback from the population who had been brainwashed for decades, as MBS learned when he barely suggested in 2017 that state welfare payments might be reduced just a little, and people might need to work at least part time; Saudi Arabia gave up on reforms after that. In the US, since 1968 the Republicans allied with the Christian right to gain a new base of supporters, which ended up eating the party whole starting in the mid-1990s and finished with Trump’s first election. Even the beliefs of followers of Christian nationalism in the US is relatively new. The apocalyptic millenarian New Apostolic Reformation were a relatively obscure and shunned sect which got a toe-hold into the first Trump administration, then exploded in membership due to the Covid lockdowns when they proselytized heavily, helped by social media algorithms. People can be brainwashed in relatively short time.
Anyway, things are complicated, countries usually don’t like to admit to their mistakes, nor do countries like to expend resources to help fix the problem they caused when they pushed over the apple cart. I have a feeling though, that once the sane gets back power from the insane (hopefully starting with the midterms this November), the US can start getting back onto the right track. Future American Presidents probably (and should) go on an apology tour to all the allies, and perhaps certain allies will also put more effort into the collective defense. There is blame not just for American mistakes but also European mistakes; too many countries started taking friends for granted, and that goes both ways, though currently MAGA’s reaction to real but exaggerated problems in the transatlantic relationship is extreme and uncalled for. There should be dialogue and compromise on how the burdens should be shared fairly. As for the Middle East, I have less hope. I’ve been on many tours and jaunts through the Middle East and have found the peoples there from Turkey to Egypt to Israel to the Arabs to be wonderful and kind who are led by greedy and ungrateful warmongering leaders incapable of compromise. But that is their problem to solve. If the Near East have not solved their problems after 5,000 years, there is no realistic expectation for much younger peoples to come in to fix the problem for them.
there is this sequence from the Asterix comic books that illustrates what you are saying best:
(growing up with those comics is a legacy of parents who studied in Paris)
The French have always had a great sense of humor. On being reasonable and sharing the spotlight, not so much, which includes my French cousins sadly. I saw Merz’s comments yesterday and Pistorius’ comments this morning, which caused me a bit of sadness when the current German government is probably the most pro-American in a long while, though one must recognize the level-headedness of the Germans.
The US is in a unique position of being probably the only country in the world with the vast territory, natural resources and large population that could actually survive and prosper on autarky as a policy. I am worried about Europe. There is much talk, especially from France, about Europe standing alone. What Macron actually means seems to me to be a “French-led Europe” which I have my doubts when France has so many domestic problems herself. So what is it going to be, trading a recently rude but previously mostly benevolent senior partner in the US for outright vassalization by China, it’s a choice the EU needs to come together to make in the next years. All signs point to MAGA receiving a walloping this November midterm. If the Democrats manage to decisively take back at least the House, they can cut off all funding to the Executive Branch. Let’s hope that comes to fruition.
Wonderful assessment. History is the roots of today, long and deep.
Someone told me the other day that for a dead guy, Epstein seems like he is the most powerful man in the world, not the President of the United States. Sad, but probably true.