War doesn't determine who's right, it determines who's left.
“Later, with time, I learned that although all men are capable of good and evil, the worst among them are those who, when they commit evil, do so by shielding themselves in the authority of others, in their subordination, or in the excuse of following orders.”
— Arturo Pérez‑Reverte
As TV screens again explode with breaking news in all countries simultaneously, wise observers will know better than to believe everything they see. Days after a devastating plane crash that took the lives of ~270 people, leaving one miraculous survivor, the long-awaited spark to full-blown war in the Middle East has finally occurred.
However, as people remain glued to their screens—whether through small black slabs in their palms or larger wall-mounted pixel projectors—their ability to reason fades. Gruesome content pours in from both Israel and Iran: burning buildings, bloodied civilians, rulers in military dress vowing retaliation. Most viewers, instead of critically assessing what’s unfolding, are busy choosing sides. Few are asking the more important question: how do both sides justify the horrors they commit?
The Hypocrisy of War
On one side, the Israeli government asserts that Iran’s ambitions are genocidal. They claim Iran's leadership seeks nothing less than the destruction of the Jewish state. With this narrative, acts that would otherwise be condemned, such as the assassination of scientists, bombings near residential areas, and economic sabotage, are reframed as pre-emptive strikes.
The deaths of Iranian civilians are seen as tragic but necessary collateral damage. If those civilians lived near a facility that may one day contribute to nuclear weapons, their deaths are framed as the fault of the Iranian regime for placing them in harm’s way. Likewise, Israel defends its targeting of what it calls “state-sponsored terrorists” by pointing to Iran’s financial support for militant groups operating in Lebanon, Gaza, and elsewhere—groups that have claimed Israeli lives.
On the other side, Iran paints itself as a nation under siege. It says its nuclear program is for peaceful energy development, not for war, and that Israel’s repeated airstrikes on its soil amount to international aggression. Iranian officials claim that dozens of its most accomplished minds—scientists, engineers, civil servants—have been assassinated in covert Israeli operations. Infrastructure vital to the country’s development has been destroyed.
On the other side, Iran paints itself as a nation under siege. It says its nuclear program is for peaceful energy development, not for war, and that Israel’s repeated airstrikes on its soil amount to international aggression. Iranian officials claim that dozens of its most accomplished minds—scientists, engineers, civil servants—have been assassinated in covert Israeli operations. Infrastructure vital to the country’s development has been destroyed.
 |
| Evacuation notice provided as a pre-emptive justification for future loss of civilian life amid a collectivist view of nations as individual agents. |
They argue that these acts were not defensive, but reckless provocations designed to destabilise and humiliate Iran. Now, they say, retaliation is not only warranted but required. And with that justification, they cast a wide net, encompassing military targets, civilian infrastructure, and economic assets—none are off limits.
Each side justifies its actions by pointing to what the other might do, or might support, or might fail to prevent. In this logic, the future is judged before it unfolds, and guilt is assigned by association. Scientists become threats. Children become acceptable casualties. And military strategy becomes a pretext for revenge. Ultimately, guilt is being collectivised while harm is being excused under the guise of good intentions.
The Cycle of Violence
This cycle of rationalised violence has been a pattern in conflicts around the world, but the difference now is the speed and reach of the narrative. In an age of instantaneous video, shallow captions, and emotionally charged footage, public opinion is shaped in minutes and hardened in hours. Context is lost. Scepticism is drowned in sentiment. And the brutal simplicity of morality is lost.
Ultimately, morality is simple, grounded in four fundamental principles:
- Outcomes matter more than intentions.
- Moral responsibility rests solely with the individual.
- Sovereignty is the individual’s right to control their own body, not a state's right to control its subjects.
- Legitimate property rights arise from objective moral principles, not from paper receipts, deeds, or monetary systems.
Anyone who supports one side over the other has already missed the more profound moral truth.
It is morally indefensible for a person to join the military and then absolve themselves of responsibility by claiming they were “just following orders.” When those orders lead to the suffering or death of innocent people, pointing to intentions (e.g., “I meant to kill a terrorist, not a child”) or deflecting blame onto authority does not excuse the outcome.
The dominant moral frameworks in use today rely on concepts like collective responsibility, collateral damage, and pre-emptive strikes—ideas which attempt to justify the punishment of people who had nothing to do with prior wrongdoing. Under this collectivist logic, unjust actions are recast not only as acceptable but also as noble.
Right now, in both Israel and Iran, average civilians—people completely uninvolved in nuclear programs or terrorism—are being bombarded with propaganda convincing them their nation is fighting a righteous battle against oppression. Whipped into a patriotic fervour, thousands of men are enlisting in their militaries, believing they are defending justice. In truth, they are being mobilised to carry out orders that result in horrific violence, based on vague or dubious justifications, all while being promised glory for “serving their country”.
It is morally indefensible for a person to join the military and then absolve themselves of responsibility by claiming they were “just following orders.” When those orders lead to the suffering or death of innocent people, pointing to intentions (e.g., “I meant to kill a terrorist, not a child”) or deflecting blame onto authority does not excuse the outcome.
The dominant moral frameworks in use today rely on concepts like collective responsibility, collateral damage, and pre-emptive strikes—ideas which attempt to justify the punishment of people who had nothing to do with prior wrongdoing. Under this collectivist logic, unjust actions are recast not only as acceptable but also as noble.
Right now, in both Israel and Iran, average civilians—people completely uninvolved in nuclear programs or terrorism—are being bombarded with propaganda convincing them their nation is fighting a righteous battle against oppression. Whipped into a patriotic fervour, thousands of men are enlisting in their militaries, believing they are defending justice. In truth, they are being mobilised to carry out orders that result in horrific violence, based on vague or dubious justifications, all while being promised glory for “serving their country”.
By now, it should be evident that the idea of “serving one’s country” is deeply flawed and is comparable to a mental disorder when it means surrendering moral agency to the state. Far from being noble, this blind allegiance often leads to greater violence, expands imperial ambitions, and allows manipulative elites to deceive ordinary people into harming others on their behalf.
Even more stomach-churning is the idea that not only do manipulative elites and rulers avoid all responsibility for the outcomes soldiers induce, they also enjoy all the benefits, such as monetary profit and a life of luxury, while order followers end up with lives full of pain and suffering.
Written by George Tchetvertakov
