Of course, the expression had never been carved in stone or painted on the walls of caves inhabited by humans or other rational beings. It is a metaphor invoked in times of war for the purposes of threat and intimidation. When invoked, it brings to mind Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.
Gaza – as a consequence of the fifth Gaza war – is a prime example in our current times, and it is the type of fate Trump and Netanyahu have in mind for Iran. When the expression is used, it evokes utter brutality. It also reminds us of other expressions, such as “Truth is the first casualty of war”, or “When war starts, diplomacy recedes” and, of course, “War is too serious a business to be left to the generals.” All these sayings may offer some wisdom and insight when discussing war, which is to say a process whose aim is mass killing and destruction. They can be applied to the current US-Israeli war against Iran – the fourth Gulf War – and one could add other, uniquely fitting ones.
At some later stage, historians are certain to dedicate considerable time to studying the personality of President Donald Trump. Since returning to power over a year ago, he has surpassed his own first term (2017–2021) in eccentricity and narcissism, imposing himself on commentators and scholars alike. He forces us to reexamine the relative significance of the role of the individual in history, a factor many philosophers and historians have discarded in favour of concepts such as “international power balances”, “class struggle” and conflicts between nations over geography, natural resources, and colonial settlements. Trump has restored the centrality of the individual in history.
American scholars had long boasted that the US was an “institutionalised state”, preventing the rise of tyrants or other types who entertain authoritarian or dictatorial fantasies. Institutions, they argued, served as crucial checks in government and policy – especially when it comes to decisions related to the use of force, i e, war.
During Trump’s first term, even though he exhibited many of the traits we see in action today, the staff of the presidential institution was drawn from the Republican Party mainstream and, specifically, individuals who had served in various government institutions. This applied in particular to key offices related to national security. The current Trump administration, however, was built on excluding such professionals and creating a coterie of “believers” in Trump, not just as a person, but as a figure destined to play a historical role in reshaping the American state by virtue of his biological and psychological attributes, both of which have puzzled many observers. In short, loyalty to Trump has become the governing principle in the White House and its management of national affairs – including the ongoing war in the Middle East.
But the war against Iran does not reflect only this “Trumpian” condition. It also entails a major clash with the Iranian state’s “Karbala paradigm”, that is, that watershed moment in Islamic history marked by the martyrdom of the Prophet Mohamed’s grandson Al-Hussein ibn Ali, along with his entire family. This paradigm informs a military strategy grounded in the resolve to sustain the attrition of the enemy in war. It is reminiscent of the Vietnamese and Afghan experiences in confronting the US. The former lasted six years and the latter 20, and both ended in a tragic debacle for American might. At another level, the “Karbala paradigm” represents a revolt against the established Sunni authority, leading to extreme forms of insurgence and violence.
But this paradigm also has a peaceful, diplomatic dimension. It was explained to me a quarter of a century ago by a friend from the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s Strategic Studies Centre. Pointing to a Persian carpet, he said that the intricate weavings that lead from one end to the other represent the Iranian negotiating method.
Given the nature of the confrontation between Trump and Iran, the end of the war remains nowhere in sight. Threats to return Iran to the Stone Age will not hasten its conclusion. Nor will invoking the spirit of Karbala for a thousand years. In a sense, this was a war of choice for Iran, which chose to establish militias across the region to undermine contemporary states, offering those militias its umbrella of missiles and a nuclear programme. It was definitely a war of choice for Trump, who followed in the footsteps of predecessors he once denounced for leading the US into “forever wars” and embroiling it in quagmires in the Middle East.
Nothing more can be said at this point. The conflict is still unfolding, and it is impossible to predict what the next day will bring, even after a so-called Stone Age.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 9 April, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: