I used to write as an expression of research or my expertise, but that time is past. The appeal of my retirement is new topics—reading and listening to podcasts, without any special expertise in what interests me. I simply don’t know enough and am unwilling or unable able to work that hard. It doesn’t seem possible to catch up; I no longer want to prove myself, and yet I’d like to clarify my views and, somehow, make a contribution.
I am in Paris, leading something of a gilded life, in a nice apartment, small, light, attractive and not too expensive, at friends’ on Sunday, a wonderful Easter lunch, a family I’ve known for years at their house along the Seine, near a town outside of the city. A friend is visiting from New York on Thursday; the weather is gorgeous, a flight to New York on May 10, a modest Riverside Drive apartment to re-inhabit, a house upstate to sell. Nothing is wrong. I’m aging, at 73, but that is no basis for complaint. I haven’t had everything, but I have had a lot, and I feel that there is still more.
There is love, a younger man in Israel with whom I feel a strong connection, but we are both complicated, and he is far away. His strategy for survival is withdrawal, and I have imagined him doubled-down in the current conflict, with missiles falling, as he travels 90 minutes each way to work. I worry of course, first reaching out too frequently, now periodically, hoping that eventually he will open up again, as he has in the past, and let me know what is “going on”. As for the war, I cannot end it, although, today, there is a fragile cease fire.
I am not a pacifist, as I do not know how we survive without self-defense. I have never been a soldier, and have never had to fight physically, but I respect those who do, who have to. While working, I learned to defend my independence, my interests, and my values. I learned firmness, toughness and a willingness to push back, take risks and say no. Now I am watching a war with Iran, over which I have no control and limited understanding; yet there are similarities. This is a fight over resources and outcomes, where strength and will matter, and yet it also a fight for survival.
In this war, there are important stakes, as an American and as a Jew. Since the beginning of the conflict, I have followed the news and a range of viewpoints, and I see no clear answer, no clear solution, everything is grey.
Iran’s government is an adversary. It is a threat to US interests, to US allies, to the flow of oil, to many of its own citizens, to the evolution of more “moderate”, market-oriented societies in the Middle East. It is an existential danger to Israel, whom it threatens through proxies, and now directly. It should be countered, through war, hopefully otherwise. If Iran’s missile stockpile was close to overwhelming, and/or if it was close to completion of a nuclear weapon, then it is hard to argue against the necessity of a preemptive attack. The danger, from a hostile regime, may simply have been too great.
Part of the problem is that that our sides’ assessment and judgments were controlled by leaders who are not trustworthy. The United States and Israel are run by people whose only effective tactic appears to be aggression, which makes it harder to believe their insistence on preemption. Israel was unable to defend itself on October 7, since it did not listen to its own intelligence. Having failed, its leaders decided that it must destroy Hamas, for which they were willing to destroy Gaza, but they still have not destroyed Hamas. For the second time this year, Israel is attacking Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon, yet “mowing the grass”, that is attacking every threat, has not so-far neutralized its enemies, who are ideologically powerful and seemingly able to reconstitute themselves, perhaps more or less endlessly. Israel’s current strategies protect it in the immediate, but keep it exclusively on a war footing, instead of working towards resolution, which is preferable over the longer term. It has been asserted that one cannot negotiate with the Palestinians or the radical Islamists, and that is probably true, but more effort can be invested in talking to them, in understanding them, and in neutralizing the antagonism in their ideology. Israel is not powerful enough, and hopefully not immoral enough, to destroy everything and everyone who oppose its existence. It needs tools other than blunt force, and further settlement of the West Bank is not one of those tools.
The American position is somewhat different. We are distant from the Middle East and, presently, not directly threatened. Our interests are threatened: the flow of oil, and the security and resources of our allies, although countering extremism has meant supporting market-oriented authoritarianism. In this, Israel has been important to us, due a mutual interest in containing Muslim extremism and due to cultural links, economic and socio-political similarity, and Israel’s considerable economic and military strength. The United States, like Israel, emphasizes its own interests but tends to overlook those of its adversaries. In the case of Iran this has meant a history of intervention to keep it out of the Soviet orbit, to protect shipping in the Persian Gulf, and to counter an Islamist ideology that seeks to limit western influence.
The present threat is a direct danger to Israel, and longer-term, an insidious threat to us. Our living standards and liberal political systems need protection against ideological and religious extremism, especially when it is armed, yet we cannot control, or attempt to control every circumstance without pushback and resentment. It is time to stop pretending that how we live, what we want, represents a higher moral good that can be imposed on others: that everyone logically wants to copy and emulate us. We can learn to step back and see what our adversaries want for themselves, without presuming, constantly, that their view of their own interests is illegitimate. Even in our own countries, we cannot reach consensus about wealth distribution, the environment, democracy or the meaning of freedom and justice.
So with the Iranians, it is best to assume that they do not wish to be dominated by us, that at least many of them do not wish to live in the image of our social and economic systems; this, despite the constant assumption in the press that they do. Iran has strategic and economic interests that may not be identical to ours. Unless we are willing to destroy “a whole civilization”, as President Trump has threatened–hopefully more for leverage than as intended policy–we may actually have to negotiate with Iran, which means, to some degree, even as the stronger party, that we may have to yield.
April 8, 2026
On the Iran War
I used to write as an expression of research or my expertise, but that time is past. The appeal of my retirement is new topics—reading and listening to podcasts, without any special expertise in what interests me. I simply don’t know enough and am unwilling or unable able to work that hard. It doesn’t seem possible to catch up; I no longer want to prove myself, and yet I’d like to clarify my views and, somehow, make a contribution.
I am in Paris, leading something of a gilded life, in a nice apartment, small, light, attractive and not too expensive, at friends’ on Sunday, a wonderful Easter lunch, a family I’ve known for years at their house along the Seine, near a town outside of the city. A friend is visiting from New York on Thursday; the weather is gorgeous, a flight to New York on May 10, a modest Riverside Drive apartment to re-inhabit, a house upstate to sell. Nothing is wrong. I’m aging, at 73, but that is no basis for complaint. I haven’t had everything, but I have had a lot, and I feel that there is still more.
There is love, a younger man in Israel with whom I feel a strong connection, but we are both complicated, and he is far away. His strategy for survival is withdrawal, and I have imagined him doubled-down in the current conflict, with missiles falling, as he travels 90 minutes each way to work. I worry of course, first reaching out too frequently, now periodically, hoping that eventually he will open up again, as he has in the past, and let me know what is “going on”. As for the war, I cannot end it, although, today, there is a fragile cease fire.
I am not a pacifist, as I do not know how we survive without self-defense. I have never been a soldier, and have never had to fight physically, but I respect those who do, who have to. While working, I learned to defend my independence, my interests, and my values. I learned firmness, toughness and a willingness to push back, take risks and say no. Now I am watching a war with Iran, over which I have no control and limited understanding; yet there are similarities. This is a fight over resources and outcomes, where strength and will matter, and yet it also a fight for survival.
In this war, there are important stakes, as an American and as a Jew. Since the beginning of the conflict, I have followed the news and a range of viewpoints, and I see no clear answer, no clear solution, everything is grey.
Iran’s government is an adversary. It is a threat to US interests, to US allies, to the flow of oil, to many of its own citizens, to the evolution of more “moderate”, market-oriented societies in the Middle East. It is an existential danger to Israel, whom it threatens through proxies, and now directly. It should be countered, through war, hopefully otherwise. If Iran’s missile stockpile was close to overwhelming, and/or if it was close to completion of a nuclear weapon, then it is hard to argue against the necessity of a preemptive attack. The danger, from a hostile regime, may simply have been too great.
Part of the problem is that that our sides’ assessment and judgments were controlled by leaders who are not trustworthy. The United States and Israel are run by people whose only effective tactic appears to be aggression, which makes it harder to believe their insistence on preemption. Israel was unable to defend itself on October 7, since it did not listen to its own intelligence. Having failed, its leaders decided that it must destroy Hamas, for which they were willing to destroy Gaza, but they still have not destroyed Hamas. For the second time this year, Israel is attacking Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon, yet “mowing the grass”, that is attacking every threat, has not so-far neutralized its enemies, who are ideologically powerful and seemingly able to reconstitute themselves, perhaps more or less endlessly. Israel’s current strategies protect it in the immediate, but keep it exclusively on a war footing, instead of working towards resolution, which is preferable over the longer term. It has been asserted that one cannot negotiate with the Palestinians or the radical Islamists, and that is probably true, but more effort can be invested in talking to them, in understanding them, and in neutralizing the antagonism in their ideology. Israel is not powerful enough, and hopefully not immoral enough, to destroy everything and everyone who oppose its existence. It needs tools other than blunt force, and further settlement of the West Bank is not one of those tools.
The American position is somewhat different. We are distant from the Middle East and, presently, not directly threatened. Our interests are threatened: the flow of oil, and the security and resources of our allies, although countering extremism has meant supporting market-oriented authoritarianism. In this, Israel has been important to us, due a mutual interest in containing Muslim extremism and due to cultural links, economic and socio-political similarity, and Israel’s considerable economic and military strength. The United States, like Israel, emphasizes its own interests but tends to overlook those of its adversaries. In the case of Iran this has meant a history of intervention to keep it out of the Soviet orbit, to protect shipping in the Persian Gulf, and to counter an Islamist ideology that seeks to limit western influence.
The present threat is a direct danger to Israel, and longer-term, an insidious threat to us. Our living standards and liberal political systems need protection against ideological and religious extremism, especially when it is armed, yet we cannot control, or attempt to control every circumstance without pushback and resentment. It is time to stop pretending that how we live, what we want, represents a higher moral good that can be imposed on others: that everyone logically wants to copy and emulate us. We can learn to step back and see what our adversaries want for themselves, without presuming, constantly, that their view of their own interests is illegitimate. Even in our own countries, we cannot reach consensus about wealth distribution, the environment, democracy or the meaning of freedom and justice.
So with the Iranians, it is best to assume that they do not wish to be dominated by us, that at least many of them do not wish to live in the image of our social and economic systems; this, despite the constant assumption in the press that they do. Iran has strategic and economic interests that may not be identical to ours. Unless we are willing to destroy “a whole civilization”, as President Trump has threatened–hopefully more for leverage than as intended policy–we may actually have to negotiate with Iran, which means, to some degree, even as the stronger party, that we may have to yield.
April 8, 2026