Voices: We Don’t Learn from History or Today’s Events

The Repeating Cycle of Conflict in the Middle East

History has a way of repeating itself, often with devastating consequences. The saying “The only thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn from history” is more than just a cliché—it’s a warning. In the context of the Middle East, this sentiment takes on an even more dire meaning. The region has witnessed a series of conflicts that have left behind nothing but destruction and chaos, yet the cycle continues.

In recent years, Afghanistan has become a symbol of this pattern. The so-called “war on terror” stretched over two decades, costing the United States and its allies an estimated $6 trillion. This staggering amount of money was spent on a conflict that resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and ultimately failed to achieve any meaningful outcome. The Taliban returned to power, and now they govern a state that enforces gender apartheid and is increasingly isolated from the Western world. The lesson from this war is clear: military intervention does not bring stability or democracy; it often creates more problems than it solves.

A Pattern of Justifications and Failures

Since the turn of the millennium, the United States and its allies have repeatedly used similar justifications for their interventions in the Middle East. From the 9/11 attacks in Afghanistan to the threat posed by ISIS in Syria, these reasons have often been exaggerated or based on flimsy evidence. Yet, the underlying theme remains the same: the belief that bombing can lead to peace.

As singer Michael Franti once said, “You can bomb the world to pieces, but you can’t bomb it into peace.” This sentiment captures the futility of using violence as a solution to complex political and social issues. Each time, the West leaves, and the countries involved are left to deal with the aftermath of the chaos they’ve created.

The Situation in Iran

Iran is now at the center of growing tensions, with the potential for further conflict looming large. The current administration’s approach to dealing with Iran has raised concerns, particularly given the lack of a coherent plan. There are questions about who would take over if the current regime were to fall, and whether figures like the son of the former Shah could be brought back into the picture. However, no one seems to have a clear strategy for what comes next.

The U.S. defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, has spoken about “Operation Epic Fury,” which appears to be focused primarily on military action. His rhetoric suggests a willingness to use force without a clear understanding of the long-term consequences. Even more concerning is the suggestion that some within the administration may be framing the conflict in religious terms, linking it to the idea of the “End of Days” and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. This kind of thinking is not only dangerous but also undermines the credibility of the entire effort.

Political Disappointments and Missed Opportunities

In the UK, Keir Starmer has faced criticism for his shifting stance on the issue of war. Initially, he appeared to be cautious about supporting military action, but he quickly changed his position after being challenged by Trump. This shift has raised questions about his commitment to his principles and his ability to make decisions based on reason rather than political pressure.

Starmer’s background as a human rights lawyer makes his current actions all the more disappointing. He needs to remember the lessons of history, such as the decision by Harold Wilson to avoid involvement in the Vietnam War. That choice, though controversial at the time, proved to be a wise one in the long run.

Another important lesson comes from the Marshall Plan, which helped rebuild Europe after World War II. Instead of destroying Germany, the U.S. invested in its recovery, leading to decades of economic growth and stability. If the U.S. had taken a similar approach in Afghanistan, the country might have developed into a prosperous and peaceful nation rather than one defined by war and suffering.

The Need for a New Approach

Despite the lessons of the past, the cycle of conflict continues. There is no clear plan for addressing the current situation in the Middle East, and the “dogs of war” are once again being unleashed. It is time for a different approach—one that prioritizes diplomacy, development, and long-term solutions over short-term military action.

A million-person march against a Middle East war is needed, but it must be done in a way that avoids being labeled as terrorism. The voices of those who seek peace and stability must be heard, and they must be given the opportunity to shape the future of the region.

Clive Stafford Smith OBE, a human rights lawyer and Gresham College professor of law, will be giving a free lecture on recent Middle Eastern wars on Thursday, 19 March at 6pm. His insights offer a valuable perspective on how to move forward.