The Illusion of Inaction in the Face of a Bloodstained Regime

One hundred and eight years ago, just months before the end of the First World War – on March 18, 1918 – Georges Clemenceau, then France’s Prime Minister and Minister of War, addressed the National Assembly in stark terms: “People say: we do not want war, but we want peace as soon as possible. Ah! I too desire peace as soon as possible. Everyone does. Anyone who thinks otherwise would be a great criminal. But one must be clear about what one wants. It is not by bleating about peace that one silences Prussian militarism. My policy is this: I wage war.”

This statement by the man widely regarded as the architect of France’s 1918 victory invites renewed reflection in light of the regional conflict unfolding today.

There is no doubt that those who are not committed to peace are great criminals! And this must be said of the regime in Tehran. In matters of peace, justice and freedom, its record is unmistakably clear. In the years following Khomeini’s revolution, the notoriously brutal Ayatollah Sadegh Khalkhali alone ordered the execution of 10,000 opponents. His notoriety was such that he earned the nickname “the Hanging Judge.”

Between 2023 and 2025, the mullahs’ regime carried out 4,000 executions out of a total of 6,000 recorded worldwide over the same period. The scale of repression in Iran speaks for itself: between 1980 and 2022, more than 10,000 opponents were killed during street protests. During the latest wave of demonstrations in 2026, more than 30,000 protesters were gunned down by the Basij.

It is also worth recalling that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the mullahs have given unwavering support to the brutal rule of Assad – both father and son – in Syria, as well as to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Bolstered by this backing, the latter has preached war unabashedly for more than four decades – and continues to do so. Peace has never been part of its calculus, only temporary truces between conflicts, used to rearm and regroup.

Moreover, it has succeeded in rallying both fervent supporters and opportunists to its positions and strategies. In recent days, many of these individuals have suddenly “reactivated” themselves, presenting themselves as a kind of “drawing-room resistance” against Israel and the United States.

Hezbollah is now directly subordinated to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Since 2005, it has carried out a series of assassinations, beginning with former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri. Prominent figures associated with the March 14 forces have suffered the same fate, in a spiral of violence that, for now, culminated in the killing of the editor and socio-political activist Lokman Slim.

These assassinations have helped Hezbollah intimidate sovereigntists and infiltrate Lebanon’s institutions and administrations with a host of corrupt and compliant officials, at the expense of Lebanese citizens who have long aspired to a genuine rule-of-law state since independence. This has steered the Republic toward near collapse.

Since 1999, Hezbollah has faced thinkers, journalists, religious leaders, and student movements who, over the years, have endured continuous repression at the hands of security services initially controlled by the Syrian occupation and later by Hezbollah and its allies.

Opposition parties eventually emerged, but the results of their efforts remained limited. At the top of state hierarchies, behavior ranged from direct or indirect collaboration with Iran to outright inaction. Champions of inaction, who justified their stance by prioritizing civil peace, delivered bland, soporific speeches that could apply anywhere, at any time. These inactive actors waited in vain for better days, acting with Hezbollah as the lamb does with the wolf in La Fontaine’s fable.

Meanwhile, the so-called “peace bleaters” in Lebanon and the West have criticized the United States’ campaign against Iran’s brutal and xenophobic regime, which has used diplomacy as a tactic to buy time, weaken its opponents, and advance its agendas in armaments, nuclear development, and regional subversion.

These champions of peace have nothing to offer but inaction in the face of Tehran. They argue that Washington’s and the West’s sanctions policy has achieved nothing over the past three decades.

This is partly true – but without those sanctions, would we have had even a semblance of neighborly relations with Iran? Did the mullahs not at one point claim control over Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, and Sanaa? Without sanctions, could the situation have been any worse?

The same “peace bleaters” criticize President Trump, rightly or wrongly, either for his perception of priorities or for taking action against Iran. They reached their conclusions within the first hours of the conflict. For the mullahs’ regime, they could hardly have found better supporters.

This regime could collapse tomorrow or survive for months – or even years – but it will almost certainly be incapable of effectively exporting its revolution throughout the region, as stipulated in the Iranian Constitution.

An American-Israeli campaign against Iran will inevitably have long-lasting consequences for the global economy and for taxpayers’ wallets around the world. It is the price to pay to curb the disruptive influence of a regime that has already destabilized the Arab world – and, arguably, the world at large. Those who are not fighters will never understand this! And as for the perennial opportunists, always guided by business interests, they have no objections to hegemony or the erosion of values.