When History Repeats Itself ...

Mark Twain's famous quote, "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme," is a concise and insightful observation about the nature of historical events. It suggests that while specific situations, people, and outcomes in history are unique and never precisely replicated, there are recurring patterns, themes, and consequences that echo across different eras. Centuries before, Maimonides anticipated this wisdom in Chapter 2 of his seminal work on repentance. He posited a profound criterion for true teshuvah: complete repentance is achieved when an individual, faced with identical circumstances and internal impulses that led to a past transgression, consciously refrains from repeating the sin. This act of self-mastery demonstrates that repentance is not merely fleeting regret, but a deep-seated transformation of character and values. One might say that God designed the world to offer us opportunities to redeem the errors and foibles of our past.

After the Holocaust, many of us, as second-generation children of survivors, grappled with the terrifying question: Could the Holocaust happen again? A primary, agonizing lesson from that catastrophe was the tragic failure to take Hitler's threats seriously enough. His blueprints for destruction, laid out in Mein Kampf (1925) and codified in the Nuremberg Laws (1935), were initially dismissed by too many as mere rhetoric. This dangerous complacency enabled the horrors of the "Final Solution" by 1941–1942. Many German and European Jews, particularly assimilated ones, harbored the hope that Hitler's fiery pronouncements were symbolic or temporary, believing that economic integration or political moderation would eventually temper Nazi policies. Emigration, often costly and restricted, saw only 37,000 of Germany’s 523,000 Jews leave by 1933.

Internationally, the initial perception was often similarly misguided. Some Western outlets, like The Times (London), initially framed Hitler as a nationalist whose views, while exaggerated, were containable. American isolationists, meanwhile, argued that Germany’s internal policies held no relevance to U.S. interests. This dismissal, fueled by wishful thinking, a failure to grasp radical ideologies, or competing national priorities, allowed Hitler to consolidate power unchecked. By 1933, the Nazis had already banned Jewish businesses, purged Jews from civil service, and enacted boycotts, escalating anti-Semitic policies without significant international protest. This lack of a decisive global response emboldened Hitler, proving that his threats could be implemented with impunity. Ultimately, from 1941-1942, the Nazis meticulously planned and implemented their "Final Solution" at the Wannsee Conference (January 20, 1942), detailing the deportation and extermination of Europe’s 11 million Jews. Death camps like Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Sobibor became operational, employing gas chambers to murder millions. By 1945, six million Jews—two-thirds of Europe’s Jewish population—had been systematically murdered, alongside Romani, disabled individuals, and political dissidents.

If the Holocaust taught us anything, it is this: when someone explicitly threatens to exterminate you, those threats must be taken with the utmost seriousness. As George Santayana wisely observed in 1905, "He who forgets the past is condemned to repeat it."

In 1917, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman's description of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as the "new Hitler of the Middle East" is a highly charged analogy aimed at highlighting Iran as an existential and expansionist threat to regional stability. This comparison serves to warn against appeasement, justify Saudi Arabia's confrontational stance, and rally international support for a tougher approach to Iran, framing Khamenei's leadership as a grave danger that must be decisively stopped to prevent catastrophic regional conflict.

Today, the Jewish people once again find themselves facing an existential test, presenting a chilling echo of the past. How will we respond this time around?

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has consistently labeled Israel the "Little Satan" and the U.S. the "Great Satan," repeatedly vowing Israel’s destruction. A Tehran billboard, unveiled in 2017, starkly counts down to Israel’s predicted demise by 2040, a timeline set forth by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. While some analyses might suggest that such rhetoric serves primarily domestic political purposes or is a tool for regional posturing, the consistent and fervent nature of these declarations demands our serious attention.

Iran’s burgeoning nuclear program, with 408kg of 60% enriched uranium by June 2025 (a quantity potentially sufficient for nine nuclear bombs, according to Israeli intelligence estimates), poses an undeniable threat to Israel’s very existence. Beyond deeply rooted anti-Semitism, Iran's ambitions also encompass regional hegemony, aiming to counterbalance U.S.-Israel influence and bolster Shia dominance against Sunni rivals like Saudi Arabia. A nuclear-armed Iran would fundamentally destabilize the Middle East, potentially emboldening other rogue regimes and triggering a catastrophic nuclear arms race in the world's most volatile region. Imagine the cascade: if Iran develops the bomb, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, and others would undoubtedly follow suit. Is this a possibility that even isolationists, concerned primarily with their own national interests, are willing to gamble on? It seems highly unlikely.

Many politicians and pundits appear alarmingly unfamiliar with the profound and persistent threat Iran has posed since 1979. Here is a stark summary of the Ayatollah’s legacy of aggressive actions and proxy warfare:

· Hezbollah in Lebanon: Iran has provided continuous financial, military, and logistical support to Hezbollah since the early 1980s, equipping them with thousands of rockets and missiles. Hezbollah has launched attacks against Israel, including the 2006 Lebanon War, and has actively supported the Assad regime in Syria. The U.S. and EU designate Hezbollah’s military wing as a terrorist organization, with Iran’s support estimated to be over $700 million annually between 2012 and 2020.

· Hamas and Palestinian Groups: Iran has consistently funded and armed Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian militant groups in Gaza, particularly since the 1990s. These groups have conducted numerous attacks against Israel, including relentless rocket barrages. Iran’s support is a critical component of its anti-Israel strategy, widely criticized for fueling violence and undermining peace efforts.

· Houthi Rebels in Yemen: Since the Yemeni Civil War escalated in 2014, Iran has supplied weapons, training, and drones to the Houthi movement, enabling devastating attacks on Saudi Arabia and vital international shipping lanes. The U.S. Navy has repeatedly intercepted Iranian arms shipments to the Houthis, including sophisticated missiles and drones.

· Attacks on Western Targets: Iran is definitively linked to devastating attacks such as the 1983 U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks bombings in Beirut (via Hezbollah), which killed over 300 people, and the 1994 AMIA Jewish community center bombing in Argentina, attributed to Iran-backed operatives.

This list represents only a fraction of Iran’s documented hostile actions. This escalating conflict will most likely draw in the United States, and Iran would be profoundly unwise to harm any American soldiers. The future stability of the world simply cannot endure a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the globe. The lessons of history demand that we take current threats, explicitly articulated and demonstrably acted upon, with the seriousness they deserve.