Blockade is a Continuation of War By Other Means

Even with a ceasefire in between

Blockading an enemy as America has been doing to Iran is hardly a new thing in the annals of war. Let’s recall the post-World War I situation. Of course, the Treaty of Versailles is another relevant example at the end of the process. That has a lesson, too. Although not the one commonly thought.

America went to war against Iran for what I saw as two potential objectives: overthrowing the mullahs or pounding Iran to buy time to overthrow the mullahs eventually. After some pounding without a counter-revolution, we shifted to blockading Iran. Either we’d get an acceptable deal or maybe the the mullah regime would collapse under the pressure. And in the meantime we’d regroup and rearm in case the shooting war resumed.

Let’s recall that blockade is a form of war—even if blessed by international law as sanctions enforcement—to get to a final peace. Let’s recall the Armistice of November 11, 1918 and the long negotiations to get the Treaty of Versailles. In between the British blockade begun early in the war ruthlessly pressured Germany to formalize their battlefield defeat. It was not pretty:

The post-armistice food blockade against Germany was applied with particular severity until the end of March 1919 and was then partially raised until 12 July 1919 when it was ended by the Treaty of Versailles. In the months of October and November 1918, famine conditions were prevalent in many cities and industrial regions. From 1914 the blockade had contributed gradually to a reduction of 50 per cent in the supply of food to the population. By the end of October 1918, the reduction in the consumption of protein foods amounted to over 80 per cent. From the end of the shooting war, which had claimed three million military lives in Central Europe, to the conclusion of the state of hostilities, the continued food blockade brought about a quarter of a million additional deaths among the civilian population of Germany, within its post-1919 boundaries.

Of course, Germany existed on a continent that was already hungry, so the blockade was more effective than it would have been otherwise. Yet Germany’s rulers resisted admitting they lost during long negotiations to settle the terms of peace:

Privately, German authorities had initially considered the armistice only a temporary cessation of the war (so that they can regroup their forces)[.]

Not that the Allies didn’t stretch things out knowing they were in a stronger position. They did. And given the German attitude, a defensible approach rather than an act of cruelty.

Can America’s blockade of Iran—which still has land trade routes to alleviate the problems of the blockade in non-oil export areas—pressure Iran into agreeing to terms that are acceptable to America yet terms that keep the regime in power? That still leaves the war to be won with another campaign as the ultimate security against nutballs using nukes. At best, Iranian nukes will result in a domino effect of regional states getting their own nukes. Hilarity will not ensue in the nuclear-armed Mexican stand-off without adequate early warning capabilities to buy even a little time to avoid a “use them or lose them” policy for their nukes.

The formal end of the Great War (before it became "World War I", took a long time:

[The Treaty of Versailles was] signed at the end of World War I by the Allied and associated powers and by Germany in the Hall of Mirrors in the Palace of Versailles, France, on June 28, 1919; it took force on January 10, 1920.

The blockade was fully lifted July 12, 1919.

The Treaty of Versailles itself is often viewed as so harsh that it provoked a new world war in 1939. It may very well have led to the rise of the Nazi Party and a new war in Europe, but not because the treaty was too harsh on Germany. I believe it was because it was far to easy on Germany:

You know, the common wisdom is that the Treaty of Versailles was too harsh on Imperial Germany after World War I, which led to the rise of Hitler. When you compare the occupation, dismemberment, and de-Nazification of Germany after 1945 which created a prosperous and democratic allied Germany, you have to conclude that the Allies weren't nearly harsh enough in 1918.

The whole harshness line was a German information operation that we bought hook, line, and sinker. Perhaps it was easier to believe our side was evil rather than react to a rising threat so soon after “war to end all wars” ended. Although that was certainly convenient in the Cold War era when Germany was brought into NATO and rearmed.

World War II’s peace that brought Germany into the West was unconditional surrender and the forced change in government friendly to the West. That was a harsh peace from the point of view of the defeated state. Better for Germany in the long run, of course. But harsh in terms of a complete change in state governance in Germany.

Still, the Germans a century ago were ultimately right. The “peace” was ultimately a temporary cessation of the war until Germany could regroup its forces. Something to think about as we press for peace terms with Iran’s mullah regime.

If the mullahs stand after this war and armistice, there will be another war. Will we strike first to destroy the regime, benefiting from the time we bought by pounding Iran this year? Or will Iran strike first? Perhaps with nukes?

Have a super sparkly day.