Episode summary: How do wars end?

Seven ways to end a war

According to Omer Dank, since the 19th century, seven main ways of ending wars between nation-states have taken shape.

1. Surrender: One side announces its total surrender, as Japan did at the end of World War II. Dank emphasizes that he is dealing with ending wars, not ending conflicts, since surrender does not always bring an end to the conflict, as the resistance movement in France showed after its surrender to Germany.
2. Conquest: One state conquers another, usually with the goal of imposing a new regime and then withdrawing. In the modern era, conquest for the purpose of territorial annexation has become rare. Examples include China’s conquest of Tibet or the American invasion of Iraq.
3. Ceasefire: This is the most common way to end wars since World War II. A ceasefire can be the result of an agreement, but it is sometimes achieved without a formal agreement. Negotiations can take place before, during, or after the ceasefire, as was the case between Israel and Egypt after the Yom Kippur War. Those negotiations led to the 1978 peace treaty.
4. External coercion: World powers, usually through the UN Security Council, impose a ceasefire on the warring parties. Most of Israel’s wars have ended this way.
5. Unilateral withdrawal: A state that has invaded foreign territory decides to withdraw on its own initiative. Examples include China’s withdrawal from Vietnam in 1979 and Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip after Operation Cast Lead in 2009.
6. Fading out: The war gradually subsides and the violence drops below the threshold defined as war, without a formal ending event. Dank presents the Second Intifada as a prominent example of this phenomenon.

Dank is careful not to determine which way is preferable to another for ensuring long-term peace. He notes that conquest and the installation of an alternative regime, as in Iran in 1953, can provide temporary quiet, but can also sow the seeds of the next conflict.

The issue of legitimacy

Boris raises the question of the legitimacy of the party that decides to end the war. For example, after World War I, it was argued in Germany that whoever signed the surrender agreement was not authorized to do so. Dank argues that legitimacy is a subjective concept, in the eye of the beholder, and is related to the national narrative a nation tells itself. Legitimacy is indeed a factor of internal and external pressure on decision-makers, but it cannot be measured objectively.

Scenarios for ending the war in Iran

Dank analyzes the possible scenarios for ending the current war with Iran. He rules out the possibility of external coercion, because it is impossible to force a superpower like the United States to end a war through the UN due to its veto power.

A scenario of aerial bombings that would cause the Iranian people to overthrow the regime seems unlikely to Dank. He explains that there is no historical precedent for such a situation. Heavy bombing of Germany and Japan in World War II did not cause a popular uprising. In addition, Iran is not a one-man dictatorship but is controlled by a broad elite of the Revolutionary Guards, which enjoys a considerable base of support. Therefore, overthrowing the regime is more complex than ousting a single dictator.

Another obstacle to an agreement is what Dank calls the commitment dilemma. The Iranian regime has no reason to believe that the current American administration will abide by any agreement, given past experience. Therefore, the chance that Iran would agree to surrender in exchange for a promise that the regime will continue to exist is slim. Such a surrender would only be possible if Iran reaches a state where it completely loses the ability to hurt its rivals, a process that could take a long time.

Internal chaos or a ceasefire?

In conclusion, Dank outlines three main possibilities for ending the war:

1. A mediated ceasefire: This is the most likely scenario in his view. Such an agreement, reached through the mediation of a third country (like Oman or Qatar), would allow both sides to present some achievement and save face, even if it does not resolve the tensions in the region.
2. Iranian surrender: A possible scenario only after a long and exhausting war that depletes Iran of its military and economic capabilities.
3. Internal chaos in Iran: The war could lead to the outbreak of mass protests, as have occurred in the past, which would lead to the collapse of the regime and a period of uncertainty about Iran’s future.