WARNING: REVISIONIST HISTORY NOW BEING WRITTEN

As a writer specializing in near-future science fiction, I extrapolate what I see in the present, not to predict the future, but to identify what must change in the present to mitigate coming dystopia. The news is filled with details of the Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The media is doing what it does well—providing accurate facts—and failing at what it does poorly: contextualizing them.

Allow me to use a science fictional conceit and write a “Wikipedia” entry from twenty years in the future, describing the last couple years:

Averting Nuclear War: 2023 – 2025

With no agreement in place to prevent it, Iran concentrated on strengthening regional proxies and acquiring the capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons. When presented with the opportunity, the Israeli government expanded its war against Hamas to also deplete Hezbollah of its capacity to launch missile strikes against Israel. As such, both were left unable to support the Iranian counterattack. Response from China, Russia, and the Arab countries was muted, with all advocating de-escalation of the conflict. Germany and France endorsed the Israeli attack as necessary self-defense, and with Israeli media reporting that Iran’s missiles would have targeted Europe, the statements proved noncontroversial. US Senators threatened to destroy Iran’s oil production facilities if American troops were targeted. Thus isolated, Iran tempered its response to avoid Israeli attacks on its population centers. The crisis was contained.

The only facts made up in that account are my prediction in the last two sentences that Iran would not launch an all-out war against Israel. We will know soon if that proves true.

However, this history is revisionist because of the lack of context. Specifically:

1)    US President Obama had negotiated a nuclear agreement with Iran that eliminated its capacity to wage nuclear war. The Iranians were following the agreement, indeed, ahead of the schedule to which they had committed. Donald Trump, in his first presidency, unilaterally abrogated the agreement.

2)    The Israeli government had, throughout the previous decade, covertly supported Hamas as a counterbalance to the Palestinian Authority. The Israeli right wing did not support a two-state solution, and helping to neuter Mahmoud Abbas allowed them to claim there was no partner for peace. Abbas’s corruption didn’t help things, and trust in his leadership on the part of Palestinians was very low at point of Hamas’s 2023 attack against Israel.

3)    Israel’s response to the Hamas attack was disproportionate. Indeed, Ehud Olmert, a former Israeli Prime Minister with a rightwing ideology comparable to Netanyahu’s, has recently stated that he thinks the Israeli government is committing war crimes in Gaza. Gaza has been destroyed, and people are starving. It is hard to believe that the extent of devastation seen was necessary for Hamas’s defeat.

4)    Although Netanyahu has long believed that Iran is an existential threat to both Israel and the West, American presidents up through Obama had resisted this view. Under Biden, the United States Americanized Israel’s war on Gaza. The extent of support made it an American war. The philosophy underlying this shift was countering the threat against the West that China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea posed: a return to Cold War-like ideology. Biden viewed Hamas as a proxy for Iran, and thus, defeating Hamas became a core American military objective. Although Trump’s attitude toward Russia differs sharply from Biden’s, his position on Iran is similar.

5)    Trump, remarkably, in the aftermath of the Israeli strike is attempting to play “good cop” to Israel’s “bad cop.” He has threatened the Iranians that if they don’t make a deal with him now, they will be destroyed by Israel. The implication is that in this scenario, the US will sit back and let Israel take the lead.

6)    Israelis across the political spectrum appear to be supportive of the attack on Iran.

As for the near-future, the world appears remarkably united in the belief that all-out war between Israel and Iran would be a terrible thing. Some sort of treaty with Iran, similar to what prevailed during the Obama years, is likely to ensue.

Meanwhile, I’d predict that progress in ending the war in Gaza will take a backseat. The Arab Peace Initiative (and its most recent version adopted in the March 2025 Palestine Summit in Egypt)—Saudi and UAE troops nominally answering to the Palestinian Authority providing security in Gaza and Saudi/UAE money seeding at least the initial phases of Gaza’s reconstruction—is on hold. The problem with this plan is that it is short-term. Its logical culmination is a two-state solution for Palestine/Israel, but Netanyahu will not agree to that.

The Israeli anti-war resistance, specifically Standing Together (a joint Arab-Jewish movement), has openly endorsed the Arab Peace Initiative and is urging other Israelis to do the same. Israel’s government, however, is resisting. As is the United States government.

It may, however, be the only feasible option for addressing the humanitarian crisis and ending famine in Gaza.

So, what should American citizens be doing right now?

I dunno. But hopefully, I’ve at least framed a useful context for thinking about the issues.