Okay, now is there a historical parallel that we can draw to the current strategic situation in the Middle East?
Well, it is a siege of Iran. That is, as in the old times, a force held a fortress, and the attacker tried to take the fortress. As in Masada, where the valiant rebels of Israel met a massive Roman war machine and fought valiantly.
But there is another parallel that is probably more adequate. The siege of Julius Caesar against the Gaul Vercingetorix.
It was the culmination of a long campaign that Julius Caesar had done against the Gauls, that was an ancient enemy of the Roman’s.
So Vercingetorix was an extremely impressive warrior, he had managed to unite all the Gauls against the Romans, and fought valiantly.
So it all ended up in a siege where Caesar laid siege to a fortress where Vercingetorix was camped.
That siege was down to the skill and sheer brilliance of each commander.
Julius was just ten star spangled amazing general.
It was a cat and mouse fight. Then Vercingetorix figured out a ruse and then Caesar managed to counter the ruse. Sheer brilliance on both sides.
That is what a siege is like. It’s one strategy, then another to figure out a way to win.
In the end Caesar won.
The strategic situation in the Middle East is vastly more complicated, because it’s global. We play with energy shortage to pressure the world, banking on the internal rebellion of the Iranians and so on.
What is nerve wracking is, that we have no idea whether the Iranians are rebelling.
Right now, they are not.
The question is; will they? And for how long are we going to keep up the siege.
That again is down to the international diplomacy and spending political capital at the conflict.
This do go against all the promises of peace that was supposed to be the end result of this tenure.
So it’s extremely costly.
We will see, the question is, how long are we going to keep up the siege, and I guess, it comes down to the Iranians themselves. Do they want freedom or not?
G-d bless the will to make peace in the end.
