If we conditionally start from Thomas Hobbes and his classic “Leviathan“, go through Carl von Clausewitz and his “On War“, through Carl Schmitt and “The Concept of the Political“, all the way to Samuel Huntington and a number, a number of others, we will find something obvious to the enlightened audience.
Many thinkers have clearly described a simple fact of life relating to war - it removes nuances. During war, balanced positions are lost. It is simply impossible to have them. I am not talking on an individual level or at a table in a pub. I am talking on a public, political level. A balanced position is not balanced, but a disguised position in support of one of the parties. Not because the balancer is to blame, but because war does not tolerate balances. One of the characteristics of war is that it is an extreme form of political opposition, which a priori considers opponents along the "friend-enemy" axis. This extreme of contradictions, irreconcilability of positions, does not allow for a "middle ground". There is none and cannot be. In a reasonable time - yes. During war - no. Good, bad, that's the situation.
Accordingly, given this combination of circumstances in the two raging wars in our region - the one in Ukraine and the one in Iran - we have only two possible options as political positioning. Either we are on the side of Ukraine, or we are on the side of Russia. Either we are on the side of the USA and Israel, or we are on the side of Iran. The interesting thing is the following - these two divisions, each with its own specifics, are essentially one division. On one side stands autocracy, on the other side is the free world. Fans of Russia, for example, are on the side of Iran and criticize the United States and Israel for attacking Iran. But they completely miss the fact that in Ukraine it was their people who attacked. The truth is quite simple - these two wars are a function of a larger conflict - that of autocracies against freedom.
Okay, but here the critics of the United States and Israel in one war and the critics of Ukraine in the other have two (at first glance) valid criticisms.
Criticism one - there is no way to say that Iran is “fighting a war against freedom“, as I say, since Iran is the attacked country. Fine, but this argument is not valid in essence. Because Iran is in fact the aggressor. Iran is the country that has raised the “cause“ to destroy Israel on its national political level. Iran has been going to bed and waking up with “Death to the United States“ and “Death to Israel“ for the last four decades. And this is not just in words. It is embodied in deeds. For decades, Tehran has been financing and supporting - militarily, logistically, politically, intelligence-wise and in every way - Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, the militias in Syria and Iraq. Literally the entire national political toolkit of Iran is embodied in the understanding that Israel should not exist. It is an aggressor state par excellence. There can be no two opinions on this issue. The fact that the US and Israel hit Iran is a problem, insofar as they did it years later than necessary. Obama for years financed Iran, which financed terrorism all over the world. Let me repeat - the problem is not that the US and Israel hit Iran. The problem is that they did it only now. If the ayatollahs had been fired earlier, many lives would have been saved, and many regional dangers would have been averted.
Criticism two - why do I call the US, Israel, Ukraine, and the EU with the term “the free world“? Don't they have problems? Don't they have politically sharp debates in the US? Isn't the EU mired in bureaucracy and green nonsense? Don't they have elections in Ukraine? Don't they have criticism of Israel?
There is something important here that we need to clarify.
First, we have problems in the free world. But they are problems of a different nature, they are not like the problems of autocracies. Yes, Europe is in a political crisis. But it is our job, the free Europeans, to solve it. Yes, America and Israel are not perfect, they are not ideal. But they are free societies in which there is debate, there are different points of view, there is democracy, there is law and order, there is a judicial system, there is a civil society.
Second, the question in times of war is not whether the US, the EU and Israel are ideal. The question is whether they are better than the other side. Would you live in Iran or Germany? Would you live in Kamchatka or California? bought a house? Will your child study in Pyongyang or Amsterdam? Will you go on vacation to the Canary Islands or to Sochi? Do you want to live the Iranian, Russian or North Korean way or, with all its problems, will you choose to live the Italian, French or English way? Judging by our level of migration and how many Bulgarians we have in the free world and how few in the authoritarian one, the choice is obvious.
Bulgarians are free people. We have chosen freedom. It is in Europe and America. It is not in Russia and Iran. With all the criticism of Europe and America, these are the places that still create prosperity for their citizens. These are the places where there is freedom. In Iran there is freedom, as much as you can be free if you don't say anything against the regime. Or as much as, if you are a woman, you have no right not to be veiled in a sheet. Outside of these "trifles", you are free. That is, you are not. Not at all.
Against this background, especially in view of the indisputably clear geopolitical choice of the mass Bulgarian, there is still a shrill minority in our country that imagines that it has some significance. A minority of small "ayatullahs" that will fervently defend Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba (soon) and every other autocracy on the planet. And this while he lives in European Bulgaria, pays with euros, vacations in Greece, studies in the Netherlands, works in Germany, shops in Italy, looks at the world through the lens of America. He knows nothing about Iran, Russia and other autocracies, but he loves them and cherishes them as his own. They give him nothing, he gets nothing from them, he would not live like them, but he melts when he hears them. In his head, they are a reaction to the shortcomings in the free world. But they are a reaction that he would not choose. In general, our country is full of illogicalities. Love for the ayatollahs is one of them.
Thank you for your attention on this issue.