The escalating conflict with the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies has forced a necessary reckoning with our understanding of conflict. For decades, the West has operated under a definition of war that has been obsolete for at least a century. By clinging to an outdated binary, we have blinded ourselves to the reality of the adversaries we face.
The Clausewitzian Mirage
Our modern framework traces back to the early nineteenth century. Following the Napoleonic Wars, Carl von Clausewitz famously observed, “War is the continuation of politics by other means.” For Clausewitz, war was a discrete tool—a violent instrument used to achieve a specific political objective, after which the "normal" state of politics would resume.
The West took this insight and constructed a rigid binary: a nation is either at war or it is at peace. In this worldview, war is the tragic exception—violent, costly, and abnormal. Peace is the default state that all rational actors naturally prefer. As Clausewitz noted, “The conqueror is always a lover of peace; he would like to make his entry into our state unopposed.”
Everything in our international order flows from this assumption. The UN Charter treats war as a discrete event with defined triggers; the Geneva Conventions regulate its conduct; the Rome Statute criminalizes its abuses. Beneath this legal architecture lies a foundational hope: that wars have a clear beginning and a definitive end, and that rules exist to manage the transition between the two.
The Revolutionary Inversion
Revolutionary theorists looked at this Western definition and saw a target. They realized that if the West only fights in "episodes," it can be defeated through "permanence."
Karl Marx שר"י began this shift by reframing history not as a series of states at peace, but as an unbroken timeline of conflict. In The Communist Manifesto, he argued: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” Struggle was not the exception; it was the engine of existence.
Vladimir Lenin שר"י extended this into geopolitics, famously inverting Clausewitz to argue that “Peace is a respite for war.” To a revolutionary, "peace" is simply a period of rearmament and subversion.
Mao Zedong שר"י formalized this into explicit military doctrine. While the West viewed Mao’s 1938 dictum—“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”—as a comment on civil war, Mao intended it as a total philosophy. In On Protracted War, he engaged Clausewitz directly, accepting the continuity of war and politics but drawing the opposite conclusion. For Mao, the struggle never ends. When military conditions favor fighting, you fight; when they do not, you organize, propagandize, and negotiate. As Mao wrote: “War is politics with bloodshed; politics is war without bloodshed.”
How far was Mao willing to take this? In 1957, speaking in Moscow, he displayed a chilling indifference to the Western concept of survival: “I’m not afraid of nuclear war... If the worst came to the worst and half of mankind died, the other half would remain while imperialism would be razed to the ground.” For the revolutionary, the cause outweighs any calculation of human life.
The Institutional Battlefield
In the 1930s, Antonio Gramsci identified the next front from a fascist prison. He argued that Western institutions—law, culture, and civil society—were not neutral spaces but battlefields for what he called a “war of position.” He wrote: “Every relationship of 'hegemony' is necessarily an educational relationship.” To Gramsci, capturing the narrative was as vital as capturing a fort.
Together, these thinkers built a complete inversion of the Western order. War is not a temporary interruption of politics; rather, politics is the continuation of a war that never ends until total victory is achieved. What the West reads as "not-war," the revolutionary reads as "war by other means."
The Architecture of Lawfare
Crucially, the institutions the West built to manage conflict have been turned into weapons against it. An organization that embeds fighters in hospitals or under schools is not merely "violating" the Geneva Conventions—it is exploiting their architecture.
This is the essence of "Lawfare": the manipulation of humanitarian and legal language to constrain an adversary’s military response. As the revolutionary sees it, the West’s commitment to the "rules-based order" is a psychological vulnerability to be harvested. Using UN agencies for political warfare or using human shields to trigger international condemnation isn’t a corruption of the system—it is a precise execution of revolutionary doctrine.
The Jihadist Synthesis
Islamist revolutionary movements have absorbed this Marxist-Leninist framework and fused it with theology. Continuous war became Jihad—a multi-generational struggle conducted across military, legal, and demographic fronts.
Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Republic of Iran are not conventional actors pursuing bounded territorial goals. They operate under an explicit continuous-war doctrine. We see this language in the modern activist slogans: when it is claimed that “the war didn’t start on October 7” or that “genocide is ongoing” even during a ceasefire, they are stating plainly that the war is permanent, regardless of the facts on the ground.
The Soviet Exception
The West’s current confusion stems from a misunderstanding of the Cold War. By the 1950s, Soviet leaders had ceased to be true revolutionaries; they had become a bureaucratic "New Class" with material interests in survival. Nikita Khrushchev’s doctrine of “peaceful coexistence” was a significant ideological retreat—an admission that survival mattered more than victory.
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) worked because the Soviets had become a conventional power with conventional survival instincts. The ideology had become a costume. But the West mistook this Soviet exception for the rule. We assumed everyone, eventually, would choose stability over the cause.
The Trap of "Stability"
When the West says it wants "peace," it actually means it wants stability—the absence of visible conflict. Revolutionary doctrine exploits this desire with surgical precision. It offers a "tactic of the pause"—a ceasefire or a negotiation—which the West accepts as progress because our framework has no tool to distinguish a tactical lull from a genuine resolution.
While the West views a pause in hostilities as a step toward permanent peace, the revolutionary uses it to rebuild, rearm, and reposition. As Lenin once put it: “The movement of the enemy... is sometimes a retreat for the purpose of a more successful attack.”
This is why ceasefires in the Middle East so reliably produce more intense wars. This is why international pressure falls hardest on the party that actually wants resolution, rather than the party that uses the resolution to prepare for the next round.
Conclusion: Redefining Victory
The West persists in treating Iran as a conventional state that can be "deterred" or "brought to the table." But the Islamic Republic remains a revolutionary entity. Its nuclear program and its "Ring of Fire" proxies are not tools for defense; they are instruments of a war against the West that has not stopped since 1979.
In a revolutionary mindset, military defeat is always temporary so long as the ideological leadership remains intact. If we continue to mistake temporary stability for peace, we are not preventing deaths—we are merely subsidizing the next slaughter.
Victory against a revolutionary movement cannot mean "restoring stability." It must mean ending the revolutionary regime itself. As long as the regime remains, the war has not ended; it has merely changed form. To survive, the West must finally learn to see the war that is actually being fought, rather than the one we wish to see.
Be a Partner in the Pulse of Beis Mevakesh Lev - For almost 20 years, B’chasdei Hashem, this space has been a home for seekers—a place where Torah is accessible to everyone, everywhere, without a paywall. We’ve shared over thousands and thousands of pages of learning together. But to keep the lights on and ensure this library remains free and growing for the next generation of Mevakshei Lev, I need your partnership.
Your contribution isn't just a donation; it's the fuel that keeps these shiurim reaching hearts across the globe. Whether it’s the cost of a coffee or a monthly sponsorship, you are making this Torah possible.
[Donate via PayPal/Zelle: alchehrm@gmail.com] Thank you to my beloved friends for standing with me.
