Current Analysis: Gaza, Iran, and Power Dynamics

Contemporary analysis of power dynamics, victimhood ethics, Gaza trajectory, and Iran scenarios.

The Ethics of Victimhood and Power: A Century of Humiliation Lens

The Century of Humiliation (1839-1949) did more than shape Chinese military and economic strategy—it created an ethical framework for judging international conduct. This framework has implications for how China perceives actors on the world stage, particularly those who claim historical victimhood while wielding power over others.

The Core Lesson

From China's perspective, the Century of Humiliation taught several things:

  1. Power without ethics is barbarism dressed as civilization. Western powers spoke of “civilizing missions” and “international law” while forcing opium on China at gunpoint, burning the Summer Palace, and carving up Chinese territory. The rhetoric of rules and civilization was cover for extraction and humiliation.

  2. Rules-based order means rules made by the powerful, enforced against the weak. Extraterritoriality—foreigners immune from Chinese law on Chinese soil—exemplified this. The “international order” was a system for legitimizing domination.

  3. Those who suffered should understand suffering. China endured what it endured. This creates an expectation—perhaps unstated—that peoples with comparable historical trauma should recognize the pattern when it recurs.

Applying the Lens

This ethical framework produces specific judgments about contemporary actors:

Western Colonial Powers The inheritors of those who humiliated China continue to lecture the world about “rules-based international order.” From Beijing's vantage point, this rings hollow. The rules were written without China's consent, enforced against China's interests, and exempted those who wrote them. When the US invades Iraq on false pretenses or Europe destabilizes Libya, the “rules” prove flexible.

Japan Japan's case is particularly instructive. Japan successfully modernized to avoid colonization—then became a colonizer. Having escaped humiliation, Japan inflicted it on others: Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria, and ultimately the brutalities of the Pacific War. The Nanjing Massacre (1937) is central to Chinese historical memory. Japan exemplifies the pattern: victimhood escaped does not guarantee ethical behavior when power is achieved.

Actors Who Claim Historical Victimhood

Here the lens becomes most pointed. When a people's foundational narrative centers on historical suffering—and when that suffering is invoked to justify contemporary actions—China's Century of Humiliation framework asks hard questions:

You know what humiliation feels like. You know what it means to have foreign powers dictate terms, to have your sovereignty violated, to suffer collective trauma. Why do you inflict this on others?

This is not about genetics or inherent character. It is about the gap between claimed ethics and observed conduct. The judgment is harsher precisely because of the claimed victimhood. Those who never suffered might not know better. Those who did suffer—and built national identity around that suffering—cannot claim ignorance.

Specific Contemporary Application: Israel

China's evolving position on Israel/Palestine illustrates this framework in action:

The Historical Relationship – 1950s-1992: No formal relations; China supported Palestinian cause as anti-colonial struggle – 1992-2010s: Pragmatic engagement; Israel provided military technology (drones, missiles, radar) until US pressure forced cancellation of deals – 2010s-present: Growing distance; Belt and Road requires stable relations with Muslim-majority countries; Israel's utility to China decreased as US blocked technology transfer

The Gaza War Shift (2023-present) China's response has been notably critical: – Calling for ceasefire without condemning Hamas by name – Emphasizing Palestinian civilian suffering – Drawing parallels to historical colonial violence – Positioning China as voice of Global South against Western double standards

The Deeper Logic

Through the Century of Humiliation lens, the Israel-Palestine situation appears as:

  1. A people who emerged from genocide (the Holocaust) now accused of inflicting comparable violence on another people
  2. Western powers providing unconditional support—just as they protected opium traders from Chinese law
  3. Claims of “civilization,” “democracy,” and “defense” masking what looks, from outside, like collective punishment and territorial expansion
  4. A “rules-based order” that condemns some violations (Russia in Ukraine) while shielding others (Israel in Gaza)

The framework does not require antisemitism—it requires only the application of consistent ethical standards. If China suffered under the pretense of “civilization” and “rules,” then China recognizes the pattern when others invoke similar language.

The Broader Principle

Those who suffered and then impose suffering are judged more harshly than those who never claimed victim status.

This applies to: – Western colonial powers: Spoke of civilization while extracting wealth—still lecture the world about values while pursuing interests – Japan: Escaped colonization, then colonized; now normalized, but Chinese memory is long – United States: Founded on displacement of indigenous peoples, built by enslaved labor, yet presents itself as moral leader – Any actor whose rhetorical claims of victimhood or virtue diverge sharply from conduct

What This Is Not

This framework is not: – A claim about Jewish character or genetics (that would be antisemitism) – A denial of the Holocaust or Jewish historical suffering (the Holocaust is acknowledged as historical fact) – An endorsement of Hamas or terrorism (China has its own concerns about Islamist movements) – A comprehensive Chinese government position (internal debates exist)

It is: – An analytical lens derived from specific historical experience – A framework for understanding why certain actors face harsher judgment – An explanation for China's rhetorical positioning on international issues – A recognition that ethical credibility depends on consistency between claims and conduct

Strategic Implications

For China, this ethical framework serves multiple purposes:

  1. Global South appeal: Many developing nations share experience of colonial humiliation; China positions itself as voice of those who remember
  2. Delegitimizing Western moral authority: Every Western double standard is evidence that “rules-based order” means Western interests
  3. Domestic legitimacy: The Party ended the Century of Humiliation; vigilance against its return justifies Party rule
  4. Patient long-game: China need not act; it can simply observe and document hypocrisy, building case for alternative international order

The Century of Humiliation is not just history in China. It is a living framework for interpreting the present—including who has the moral standing to judge others, and who has forfeited that standing through their own conduct.

Gaza: Trajectory Analysis (2024-2025)

What Is Documented

Worst-Case Trajectory

One prediction: Israel uses the defined buffer zone around Gaza as a containment perimeter. A biological agent—deniable as naturally occurring disease given destroyed sanitation and medical infrastructure—reduces the population. Anyone attempting to cross the buffer is shot. The international community, presented with ambiguous causation, fails to respond decisively.

This prediction requires: – Israel possessing and deploying biological weapons (Israel has not signed the Biological Weapons Convention; no public evidence of active bioweapons program, but opacity exists) – A decision to cross a threshold that would be unambiguously genocidal – Calculating that international response would be manageable given existing patterns of inaction

The Counterargument

Israel's current approach already achieves demographic and territorial goals through means that maintain some deniability—siege conditions, “collateral damage,” forced displacement. A biological weapon would be a different category of evidence, harder to deny, and would likely trigger responses even from allies currently providing cover. Why take that risk when slower methods achieve similar outcomes?

The Harder Question

Whether the current trajectory—starvation, disease from destroyed sanitation, medical system collapse, contaminated water—produces mass death without requiring an explicit bioweapon. The line between “letting die” and “killing” may be more about international legal framing than actual outcomes for the population.

Documented conditions as of early 2025: – Famine conditions in northern Gaza (IPC Phase 5) – Collapse of medical system—hospitals non-functional or destroyed – Infectious disease outbreaks (hepatitis, respiratory infections, skin diseases) due to lack of sanitation – Children dying of malnutrition and preventable diseases – Aid delivery systematically obstructed

The question is not whether mass death is occurring—it is. The question is whether it will be permitted to reach its logical conclusion, and whether the international system will name it accurately while it happens or only in retrospect.

Pattern Recognition

The prediction above—while extreme—reflects pattern recognition that is not irrational given: – Historical precedents of genocide proceeding despite documentation and warnings – The gap between international rhetoric (“never again”) and international action – Observable conduct over 15+ months suggesting territorial and demographic objectives beyond stated security goals – Systematic destruction of conditions necessary for life (shelter, food, water, medicine, sanitation) – Buffer zone expansion consistent with permanent territorial acquisition

Whether the endpoint is achieved through spectacular violence (bioweapon) or attritional violence (siege, starvation, disease, periodic bombardment) may matter legally and rhetorically. It may not matter to those who die.

Iran: Nuclear Strike Scenario

The Logic

Israel has maintained for decades that it will not permit Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. This is existential policy, not negotiating posture. The options for preventing an Iranian bomb narrow over time:

  1. Diplomacy — JCPOA collapsed after US withdrawal (2018); negotiations stalled; Iran has advanced enrichment to near-weapons-grade levels
  2. Sabotage — Stuxnet delayed the program; assassinations of scientists created setbacks; but the program continues
  3. Conventional strikes — Iran's facilities are distributed, hardened, and in some cases buried deep underground (Fordow is inside a mountain)
  4. Nuclear strikes — The only option capable of destroying deeply buried facilities with certainty

Current Conditions

Why Israel Might Do It

Why Israel Might Not

The Darker Calculation

If Israel has concluded that: – Iran will eventually get nuclear weapons regardless – Conventional deterrence (MAD) is unacceptable given Iran's ideology – International isolation is already inevitable given Gaza – The current moment offers maximum advantage

Then the calculus shifts toward “act now, manage consequences later.”

What Would Follow

A nuclear strike on Iran would: – End the post-1945 nuclear taboo – Demonstrate that nuclear weapons are usable, not just deterrents – Accelerate proliferation (every nation would draw conclusions about needing their own) – Trigger regional war of unpredictable scope – Potentially draw in great powers (Russia has defense agreements with Iran) – Create humanitarian catastrophe (immediate deaths plus long-term radiation effects) – Reshape the international order in ways difficult to predict

Assessment

This prediction is more plausible than it should be. The pieces are in place: capability, motive, perceived window of opportunity, ideological certainty, and declining concern for international opinion. The constraints are real but may be weighed differently by those making the decision than by outside observers.

The question is whether Israeli leadership believes the post-strike world is more survivable than the world where Iran has nuclear weapons. If yes, the strike happens. If no, it doesn't.

Given observable patterns of risk tolerance and threshold-crossing in recent years, confidence in “no” has decreased.

The Current Condition

We live in the second era of human history—the era in which our species possesses the means to end itself.

What Has Changed

Before 1945: The worst-case outcome of conflict was civilizational collapse in a region. Peoples could be exterminated; nations destroyed. But humanity continued. New civilizations arose on the ruins of old.

After 1960: The worst-case outcome is extinction or near-extinction. Not just cities destroyed but global systems collapsed—agriculture, climate, ecosystems. No recovery within historical time. Perhaps no recovery at all.

What This Means

Every arms race, every regional conflict, every political decision now occurs with this background condition. The war machine built over 400 years has achieved a capability that cannot be unbuild—only managed, contained, or accidentally unleashed.

The technologies compound: – Nuclear weapons remain the primary existential risk – Biological weapons could approach similar potential – AI systems could accelerate decision-making beyond human control – Cyber weapons could trigger cascading failures – Climate change adds stress to all systems

The Threshold Cannot Be Uncrossed

We cannot return to the era of limited destruction. The knowledge exists. The materials exist. Even complete disarmament (never achieved) would leave the capability to rebuild weapons within months.

This is the permanent condition of human civilization going forward: a species capable of self-destruction, requiring continuous active management to avoid that outcome.

Summary Table: Technologies of Each Era

Era Key Military Technologies Scale of Killing
1600-1700 Sailing ships, matchlock muskets, cannon Thousands per battle
1700-1800 Flintlock muskets, improved artillery Tens of thousands per campaign
1800-1850 Steam ships, railways, telegraph, rifles Hundreds of thousands per war
1850-1900 Machine guns, breech-loaders, ironclads Millions over decades (colonial)
1914-1918 Tanks, aircraft, poison gas, submarines 20 million in four years
1939-1945 Bombers, radar, rockets, atomic bombs 70-85 million in six years
1945-1960 H-bombs, ICBMs, nuclear submarines Potential: hundreds of millions
1960-Present MIRVs, precision weapons, cyber, drones, AI Potential: billions (extinction-level)

The divide is absolute.

Before the threshold: States could wage unlimited war against each other. The worst they could do was destroy civilizations.

After the threshold: States must wage limited war or none at all. The worst they can do is destroy the species.

We have lived in this second era for sixty-five years. The war machine continues to grow, modernize, and proliferate. Whether humanity can indefinitely manage the capability it has created—whether the institutions, norms, and sheer luck that have prevented use since 1945 can hold—remains the open question of our time.