Western democracy is not an ideal political system. As the famous phrase of the French thinker Raymond Aron put it, it is “the least bad” bad. Still, another question must be asked as the American administration and the Iranian leadership talk past each other in their negotiations to end the war: How far can a Western democracy go in waging war?
The Munich Agreement, concluded on the eve of the Second World War, is among the worst of the worst stains in the history of twentieth-century European democracy. The agreement between Nazi Germany Fascist Italy and the two major democratic powers of the time, Britain and France, then vast empires that controlled much of the world, was an effort to avoid military confrontation and safeguard peace in Europe, Britain and France acquiesced to Hitler’s assault on Czechoslovakia and approved the annexation of part of its territory, without even inviting their ally and the victim of his aggression to the negotiations.
When French Prime Minister Daladier and British Prime Minister Chamberlain returned home, they were greeted as heroes and peacemakers by cheering crowds. They had not secured peace at all, of course. Rather than being satisfied with this victory, Hitler invaded Poland less than a year later, in early 1939, and triggered the Second World War, which would become the deadliest conflict in human history. Around 70 million people perished, nuclear weapons were used, and unimaginable destruction ravaged Europe, before the war culminated in the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The “spirit of Munich,” remains a notion that symbolizes weakness and preemptive surrender in pursuit of peace that leads to war. The implication is that if France and Britain had firmly confronted Hitler over Czechoslovakia, the great war would never have erupted, though this claim is unfalsifiable.
The Old Continent revived the phrase “the spirit of Munich” following democratic Europe’s failure to confront Putin’s surprise attack on Ukraine in the winter of 2022. The argument was that allowing Ukraine to fall would eventually lead to the fall of Western Europe itself. Four years later, the futile war continues, having claimed hundreds of thousands of lives.
In any case, the Munich Agreement was concluded a very long time ago. During that period, the world has changed. The year 2026 is not 1938, and “Khomeinist revolutionary Iran” is not Nazi Germany, with its ambitions to dominate Europe and the world. Yet the question remains: to what extent can Western democracy sustain the war effort?
How can Iran’s endurance be explained after three months of the American-Israeli offensive during which the supreme leader and many senior regime figures were killed, and enormous damage was inflicted on military and industrial infrastructure? There has been a clear retreat from the war’s originally declared objectives - from overthrowing the Iranian regime, forcing its unconditional surrender, and compelling it to abandon its nuclear capabilities, long-range missiles, and regional proxies - with the current negotiations, which revolve around a single central issue: reopening the Strait of Hormuz.
What explains Iran’s persistence at a time when virtually no one in the world supports Tehran’s claim over this international waterway? Exhausted though it may be, it has endured in the face of the greatest military and economic power on earth surrounding it from every direction.
Part of the answer undoubtedly lies in Iran’s vast geography, including the ease with which it can exert control over the Strait of Hormuz. The deeper explanation, however, lies in the profound difference between American democracy and Iran’s theocratic system.
The Americans and Israelis hoped that the Iranian regime could be eliminated through the instantaneous assassination of its supreme leader and most of its leadership, coupled with the destruction of its military arsenal. When that failed to happen, time began to work in Iran’s favor, despite its exhaustion.
American democracy vests immense power in the president, but he serves a four-year term. He is constrained by the House and the Senate, scrutinized by major media organizations, subjected to relentless opinion polling, and challenged by the opposition. As a result, the American president must consider the cost of living caused by war and every American soldier killed on the battlefield, lest the entire political tide turn against him.
Iran’s theocratic regime, by contrast, is led by a supreme leader, who rules for life and who answers to no one. He is obeyed by forces that pledge allegiance to him alone. If the people go poor and hungry, or if tens or even hundreds of thousands are killed through domestic repression or war, does anything truly change?
The longer the war drags on, the more impatient American democracy becomes. As for the European democracies, they are, from the outset, neither inclined toward war nor equipped to fight it. Yet, this conflict is far from ending.
