Rational thinking essentially involves identifying patterns and applying them to all relevant objects and situations. This allows us to predict how they will develop more accurately. If it turns out that a rule does not apply to some cases, we must change the rule.
For example, we might apply the same explanatory rule to two people: one whom we like and would like to see in a better light, and one whom we dislike and would like to see in a worse light. Or to two countries.
Take Russia and Israel, for example. I’m not suggesting that they’re similar countries, but they’re both countries that have started wars when they believed they were facing an existential threat and that their opponents’ forces were growing faster than their own. These are not just the opinions of their leaders. In both cases, these opinions prevail massively throughout their societies.
Were these decisions right or wrong? The only criterion can be the security of one’s own country, not the fate of the Ukrainian people (in the Russian case) or the situation in Iran (in the Israeli case). I therefore propose three criteria, the fulfilment of even one of which would mean that the decision was wrong.
- Firstly, the military power of the adversary (Iran or NATO) did not actually increase.
- Secondly, the rhetoric about destroying Israel or Russia was not intended seriously.
- Thirdly, neither the collective West nor Iran were on the verge of regime change, so it was sufficient to wait.
It is possible to analyse the situation and make estimates for each of these questions. However, this would be very difficult and laborious. Conversely, we can form an opinion about which state is criminal in a matter of seconds, with no effort required. Nevertheless, it is a gross logical error to assume that a criminal state will lose the war.